- 26 -
fact that the DPT is a simple, one-page document, with the words
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217
prominently displayed in capital letters at the very top of the
page. Surely, too, even a cursory glance at the document’s
heading, “DESIGNATION OF PLACE OF TRIAL” only a few lines above
the signature line, would have revealed the document’s nature and
origin. Moreover, immediately below the signature line and
immediately above the “Dated” line was the preprinted
designation: “Signature of Petitioner or Counsel”. This should
have alerted James to the fact that he was signing a document
related to a legal proceeding.
Thus, at this early juncture, James either knew or should
have known that a petition had been filed in the Tax Court. See
Kraasch v. Commissioner, supra at 628, concluding that
ratification occurred where the taxpayers “had, or reasonably
should have had, knowledge of the material facts of the case at
all times.” Moreover, James’ act in signing the Designation of
Place of Trial constituted a ratification of Jaffe’s prior act in
filing the petition in the first instance.
Second, when petitioner received respondent’s answer to the
petition, petitioner either knew, or reasonably should have
known, that it had a case pending before this Court. See id. In
fact, James opened the envelope containing the copy of
respondent’s answer and wrote “Attn: Steve Jaffe” in the upper
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