- 18 -
signed in the taxpayers’ names by the taxpayers’ accountant and
tax consultant, an individual who was neither an attorney nor
admitted to practice before this Court. The Commissioner filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. After the taxpayers failed to file a proper
amended petition, the Court entered an order of dismissal and
decision. Thereafter, the taxpayers filed a motion to modify the
order, alleging that the Court lacked jurisdiction because the
taxpayers neither signed the petition nor authorized anyone to
file a petition on their behalf.
After an evidentiary hearing, the Court found that the
taxpayers’ accountant had acted within the scope of his
employment when he filed the petition and signed it in the
taxpayers’ names. Among the facts and circumstances that the
Court found particularly relevant in reaching its conclusion were
the following: The taxpayers permitted their accountant to
handle their tax affairs generally, and they had knowledge that
he did so; over a period of years, the taxpayers routinely
forwarded any tax information that they received to their
accountant and relied on him to handle such material; and the
conduct of petitioners’ accountant and tax consultant, in signing
and filing the petition, was of the same general nature as, or
incident to, that which he was employed to perform.
In Shopsin v. Commissioner, supra, a petition was filed and
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011