- 57 -
Commissioner, 95 T.C. 477 (1990). However, in Mishawaka
Properties Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 363, the Court
explicitly noted that the partners were "seek[ing] refuge behind
the fact that Finkelman may not have been the TMP when the
petition was filed. * * * because they believe the period for
assessment [had] expired. * * * [and] do not now wish to ratify,
adopt, sanction, or in any way breathe life into the Finkelman
petition."
Despite the Mishawaka partners' later attempts to disavow
the petition filed by Finkelman, we found that ratification of
the petition was implied on the basis of the partners' conduct
after the filing of the petition, even though none of the
partners had expressly ratified the petition. The partners in
Mishawaka were aware that Finkelman had represented them before
the IRS, both individually and as a group (partnership), on all
business and tax matters involving Mishawaka. Additionally, the
partners knew about the FPAA's and that Finkelman had filed a
petition or was acting on their behalf in connection with the
IRS. Id. at 366. The Commissioner had treated the petition as
precluding assessment of deficiencies against the partners until
the partnership proceeding was concluded. We found that the
partners had relied on Finkelman "both before and after the
filing of the petition under consideration and did not question
his authority until * * * it became advantageous to do so. The
Page: Previous 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011