- 60 -
Consequently, we conclude that Karras and the other limited
partners ratified Winer's filing of the petition. We have held
that a taxpayer can ratify a previously filed imperfect petition,
even in the absence of express approval, through action or
inaction implicitly approving the filing of the petition.
Mishawaka Properties v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 353 (1993);
Kraasch v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 623 (1978).
Participants attempted to disavow the validity of the
petition only after they thought the period of limitations on
assessment had expired. However, as we stated in Lyon v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-351: "It was petitioner's duty to
repudiate the * * * [petition] as soon as he learned of it if he
had not authorized it." Therefore, by waiting until 1996 to
repudiate the petition that Karras knew Winer had filed in 1989,
Karras impliedly ratified it. Karras "had the duty and [was] in
a position to disaffirm any unauthorized acts * * * long before
filing * * * [the] motion now before the Court." Kraasch v.
Commissioner, supra at 628.
Not until 1996, long after the decision in this case became
final, did any partner in Davenport take any action to disavow,
repudiate, or manifest objection to Winer's filing of the
petition. We note that, at a minimum, many of Davenport's
partners had reason to question Winer's authority to file the
petition, because prior to their receipt of the May 30, 1989,
memorandum from Winer regarding the Hamilton case, their last
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