- 9 -
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-6 (citing 1 Restatement, Agency
2d, sec. 26 (1957)). The scope of an agent’s authority is
evaluated in an objective manner, taking into consideration what
a reasonable person in the agent’s position would conclude that
the principal intended, regardless of whether that is what the
principal actually intended. See id.
In order to bind the principal, the agent must either have
actual or apparent authority, or the principal must ratify the
agent’s acts. See Trans World Travel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2001-6. Authority is examined taking into account all the
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 at sec. 34).
The extent of an agent’s authority is a factual question to
be decided on the basis of all the facts and circumstances
revealed by the record. Adams v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 359, 369-
373 (1985); Kraasch v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 623, 627-629 (1978);
1 Restatement, Agency 2d, sec. 34 (1957).
This Court has held that a representative, acting under an
actual or apparent grant of authority from the taxpayer, has the
requisite authority to petition this Court in the name of the
taxpayer. See Kraasch v. Commissioner, supra (taxpayer’s agent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011