- 10 -
a person creates a presumption that the attorney has the
authority to represent that person. See Osborn v. United States
Bank, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 830 (1824); Gray v. Commissioner,
73 T.C. 639, 646-647 (1980). However, petitioner has overcome
that presumption. He testified credibly that he did not
authorize Berg or anyone else to prepare, sign, and file a
petition for his 1980 tax year, and that he did not authorize
Covalt, Robb, or anyone else to retain counsel for him. There is
no evidence that petitioner, Covalt, or Robb authorized Berg or
anyone else to sign a petition for petitioner’s 1980 tax year.
The paralegals in Berg’s law firm prepared petitions for
each name that appeared on a notice of deficiency that they
received. We believe that the paralegals in Berg’s law firm
prepared a petition for petitioner because his name was on the
notice of deficiency that they received. Petitioner did not know
about the notice of deficiency for 1980 until the Order to Show
Cause hearing. We conclude that petitioner did not authorize
Berg to sign and file the petition for 1980 in docket No. 22961-
88.
Respondent points out that petitioner sent and received
letters that referred to docket No. 22961-88 and that he appeared
at the Order to Show Cause held on November 17, 1998, and settled
the merits of that case. Respondent contends that petitioner
ratified the petition in docket No. 22961-88 by this conduct. We
disagree.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011