- 7 -
C. Whether Respondent's Position Was Substantially Justified
1. Reasonable Basis in Law
We first decide whether respondent had a reasonable basis in
law for the contention that the petition was valid as to Martin.
Respondent cites Rule 33(b), Osborn v. United States Bank, 22
U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 830 (1824), and Gray v. Commissioner, 73
T.C. 639, 646-647 (1980), for the proposition that an attorney
who signs a petition is presumed to have authority to do so, and
that Berg’s signature is his representation that he was
authorized to represent Martin. Rule 33(b) states in pertinent
part that: “The signature of counsel also constitutes a
representation by counsel that counsel is authorized to represent
the party or parties on whose behalf the pleading is filed.”
Martin does not contend that respondent lacked a basis in law for
the contention that Berg was authorized to file the petition for
Martin. We conclude that respondent had a reasonable basis in
law for contending that Berg was authorized to file the petition
on Martin’s behalf.
2. Reasonable Basis in Fact
We next decide whether respondent had a reasonable basis in
fact to contend that the petition was valid as to Martin. When
respondent filed the answer in this case, respondent knew that
Berg was an attorney and that he had signed the petition for
Rothhammer and Martin. Respondent also knew that Bergman had
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011