- 19 -
signed in the taxpayers’ names by the taxpayers’ accountant and
bookkeeper, an individual who was neither an attorney nor
admitted to practice before this Court. There was no evidence
that the taxpayers ever saw the contents of the petition. In any
event, after it was filed, the accountant engaged in negotiations
with the Commissioner’s Appeals Office and was successful in
reaching a settlement that reduced the deficiency. A stipulated
decision was signed by the taxpayers and the Commissioner and
then entered by the Court. Thereafter, petitioners filed a
motion to vacate the decision on the ground that the taxpayers
neither authorized nor ratified the filing of the petition on
their behalf by their accountant.
After an evidentiary hearing, the Court found that the
taxpayers’ accountant had acted within the general scope of his
employment in signing the petition and as petitioners’ authorized
agent in filing the petition. In so finding, the Court stated as
follows:
It is clear from the record in this case that
petitioners routinely and without question placed their
tax affairs in the hands of Levy [petitioners’
accountant]. Time and again at the hearing petitioners
testified that, when they received tax-related
documents, their practice was to forward them to Levy
or telephone Levy for his instructions with respect to
what to do with the documents. Further, petitioners
invariably deferred to Levy’s judgment, signing without
necessarily reading, or certainly understanding,
whatever document Levy advised that they sign. In
other words, petitioners permitted Levy to handle their
tax affairs generally and knew that he did so. In
essence, Levy was petitioners’ general agent authorized
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011