- 23 -
notice of deficiency.11 Indeed, Mrs. Dornbrock failed to show
how Mr. Young could have obtained the correct amounts of
deficiencies and additions to tax, to include in the joint
petition, unless her husband had indeed forwarded their notice of
deficiency to Mr. Young through Mr. Pasternak. On the entire
record, this Court is convinced that Mr. Young was given the
authority, by Mr. Dornbrock, to represent both Mr. and Mrs.
Dornbrock in the filing of the joint petition in this case on
their behalf.
The joint petition was timely filed and Mr. Young thereby
became counsel of record for Mr. and Mrs. Dornbrock in this case.
It is notable that the appearance of an attorney on behalf of an
individual creates a presumption that the attorney has the
authority to represent that individual. Osborn v. Bank of United
States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 830 (1824); Gray v. Commissioner,
73 T.C. 639, 646 (1980). No motion to remove or cause the
withdrawal of Mr. Young as counsel for Mr. Dornbrock, Mrs.
Dornbrock, or Mr. Dornbrock's estate was filed until after Mrs.
Dornbrock filed the subject motion seeking to vacate or revise
the decision, nor, for that matter, have any of the other
petitioners in this case filed any motion to remove Mr. Young or
to vacate the decision entered against them. Thus, it appears at
11
In fact, Mr. Young testified, and the record reflects, that
he represented most, but not all, of the Pop Phonomasters
investors.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011