- 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 hadPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011