- 42 -
that specificity of the written authorization is not required).
Cambridge Research & Dev. Group v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 287, 295
(1991); Amesbury Apartments, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. at
242-243. In Amesbury Apartments, Ltd. v. Commissioner, supra, we
reasoned: “[T]he crucial word in temporary regulation section
301.6229(b)-1T is ‘may,’ not ‘shall.’ There is no mandatory
requirement that a partnership give authority to a person to
execute a consent utilizing specific procedures, such as those
outlined in the temporary regulation.” DV-85 contends that our
reasoning in Amesbury Apartments, Ltd., and Cambridge Research &
Dev. Group, is obiter dicta since the consents in both cases were
signed before section 301.6229(b)-1T, Temporary Proced. & Admin.
Regs., supra, came into effect. In any case, we find our
reasoning in those two cases to be persuasive, and follow it
here. See Bugaboo Timber Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 488.
We may look to the DV-85 limited partnership agreement to
determine whether Mr. Schreiber was authorized by the partnership
in writing to enter into an agreement with respondent to extend
the 3-year period; i.e., to execute the DV-85 Form 872-P for
1985. See Cambridge Research & Dev. Group v. Commissioner, supra
at 301-302.
3. Discussion
In Cambridge Research & Dev. Group, we found that language
in the agreement of limited partnership there in question
authorizing the general partners to “take any action or do
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011