- 48 -
3. Agency
Alternatively, HFA-II argues: “In addition, * * * [AMCOR]
was managing agent of HFA. As managing agent, * * * [AMCOR] was
granted the responsibility for conducting all of HFA’s business
and tax affairs, and was authorized to sign the 1985 Form 1065 in
that capacity.” We reject that argument with respect to the HFA-
II for the same reasons we reject it with respect to AVA. See
supra sec. III.B.1.e.(2).
4. Authority of Limited Partner
As a second alternative, HFA-II argues: “The 1985 Form 1065
for HFA was executed by Schreiber, a general partner in AVF,
which was a limited partner in HFA during 1985.” Respondent
concedes that AVF was a limited partner in HFA-II “for the 1985
year”. HFA-II has failed to prove that Mr. Schreiber executed
the HFA-II 1985 Form 1065 in any capacity other than as a vice-
president of AMCOR. Even if we assume that he executed it as a
limited partner of AVF, however, the HFA-II 1985 Form 1065 is
still invalid.
Section 6063 provides that a partnership return shall be
signed by any one of the partners. It further provides: “The
fact that a partner’s name is signed on the return shall be prima
facie evidence that such partner is authorized to sign the return
on behalf of the partnership.” Prima facie evidence suffices to
establish a fact until contradictory evidence is produced. See
Black’s Law Dictionary, 579 (7th ed. 1999). Section 9.4 of the
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011