- 22 -
agreement in this case qualifies as a "writing" under section
6229(b)(1)(B).14
In sum, we hold that Mr. Farley as the general partner was
"authorized by the partnership in writing" within the meaning of
section 6229(b)(1)(B) to execute a consent to extend the section
6229(a) period of limitations and, consequently, that the 1986
consent executed by Mr. Farley was valid, and the 1996 notice was
timely. Based on this holding, we need not and do not reach
respondent's other arguments based on the operation of
Pennsylvania partnership law alone,15 or equitable estoppel.
Accordingly,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
14 Petitioners argue that because the Form 2848 granting
Mr. Farley power of attorney to represent the partnership was
never filed, Mr. Farley had no authority to sign the consent.
But a general partner needs no power of attorney to act on behalf
of the partnership. 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. secs. 8321, 8533
(West 1995).
15 See Cambridge Research & Development Group v.
Commissioner, 97 T.C. 287, 291 (1991) (where we expressly left
that question open); see also Medical & Business Facilities Ltd.
v. Commissioner, 60 F.3d 207, 211 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that a
statute is not a sufficient written authorization), revg. T.C.
Memo. 1994-38.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Last modified: May 25, 2011