- 15 -
that the consent form did not require the attachment of a copy of
the written authorization under such circumstances. Moreover,
the determination of whether a person was authorized to extend
the period of limitations does not turn on the existence of a
technical defect in the filling out of the form, such as a
failure to attach a copy of this authorization. Monetary II Ltd.
Partnership v. Commissioner, 47 F.3d 342, 347 (9th Cir. 1995)
(and cases cited thereat, especially Cambridge Research &
Development Group v. Commissioner, supra at 290 (non-TMP who
signed as TMP gave valid consent though the issue of the failure
to attach a copy of the written authorization was never raised)),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-562; Bugaboo Timber Co. v. Commissioner,
supra at 485; Pleasanton Gravel Co. v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 839,
854-855 (1985) (and cases cited thereat).
Petitioners now have the burden of going forward with
evidence to show that the extension was invalid in order to
sustain their burden of proof. Here, that task translates into a
need to show that the particular agreement in the record was not
executed, and that Mr. Doyle did not intend to be bound by that
agreement in becoming a partner.
Petitioners attempt to sustain their position that there was
no executed partnership agreement simply by pointing to the
failure of efforts to find such a copy and the failure to supply
a signed copy to the USTA. See supra pp. 4-5. But such a
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011