- 17 -
circumstances, including the relationship of the parties, the
common business practices, the nature of the subject matter, and
the facts of which the agent has notice concerning objects the
principal desires to accomplish. See id. (citing Restatement,
supra sec. 34).
The existence and scope of an agency relationship are
questions of fact, unless the relationship is so clear as to be
undisputed. See Anetsberger v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 14 F.
3d 1226, 1234 (7th Cir. 1994). As the trier of fact, “it is our
duty to listen to the testimony, observe the demeanor of the
witnesses, weigh the evidence, and determine what we believe.”
Kropp v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-148; cf. Diaz v.
Commissioner, 58 T.C. 560, 564 (1972).
Petitioner first contends that the Court lacked jurisdiction
to enter the stipulated decision because petitioner never
authorized Jaffe to file a petition on its behalf. We disagree.
In our view, the record demonstrates that Jaffe acted as
petitioner’s authorized agent in filing the petition and that
Jaffe acted within the general scope of his employment when he
signed the petition. In this regard, two prior cases of this
Court are particularly instructive. See Kraasch v. Commissioner,
supra; Shopsin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-151, affd.
without published opinion 751 F.2d 371 (2d Cir. 1984).
In Kraasch v. Commissioner, supra, a petition was filed and
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011