- 12 -
Petitioner first argues that the signatures on the Form 2553
were forgeries, and that the Form 2553 was therefore invalid
because there was no validly executed election of S corporation
status by an authorized officer and no validly executed
shareholder consents. As noted above, respondent concedes that
the apparent signatures of petitioner were not affixed by him but
makes no concession with respect to the apparent signature of
Mary Ann Johnson. More importantly, respondent argues with
respect to both signatures that they were authorized by
petitioner and Mary Ann Johnson, and therefore that they were
valid. An authorized signature is in certain circumstances
treated as equivalent to an actual signature. Miller v.
Commissioner, 237 F.2d 830 (5th Cir. 1956), affg. in part and
revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1955-112; Booher v. Commissioner, 28
T.C. 817 (1957); Tompkins v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-363;
cf. Lefebvre v. Commissioner, 758 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1985),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-202; United States v. Ponder, 444 F.2d 816,
822 (5th Cir. 1971); secs. 1.6061-1, 1.6012-1(a)(5), Income Tax
Regs.; sec. 1.6061-2T, Temporary Income Tax Regs., 58 Fed. Reg.
4080 (Jan. 13, 1993).
Respondent alleges that petitioner and Mary Ann Johnson
authorized the signatures on the basis of the fact that JPS had a
4(...continued)
corporation status of the corporation was expressly reserved for
later disposition. Id. n.4.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011