- 8 -
filed a similar petition for Rothhammer and Martin for other
years and that Berg had been their attorney in that case, and
that Berg and his law firm had filed similar petitions for many
other taxpayers. It was reasonable for respondent to believe
that Martin had authorized Berg to file the petition for Martin.
Martin’s counsel told respondent’s counsel in April 1999
that Martin had not authorized or ratified the filing of the
petition in this case. Respondent’s counsel spoke to Berg in
April 1999 and received subpoenaed documents from Berg’s law firm
in May 2000. The documents appeared to be contrary to Martin’s
position because they included the docket number for this case.
We conclude that respondent had a reasonable basis in fact
for the position that the petition was valid as to Martin on
grounds that Berg was authorized to sign the petition for Martin.
3. Martin’s Contentions
Martin contends that respondent’s position was not
substantially justified because Berg did not attach to the
petition a copy of the notice of deficiency sent to Martin.
Martin contends that this violates Rule 34(b)(8) and, as a
result, that we lack jurisdiction over him. We disagree. Rule
34(b)(8) states that a copy of the notice of deficiency shall be
attached to the petition. However, failure to attach to the
petition a copy of a notice of deficiency does not deprive this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011