- 10 -
Kaufman did not hold any of the positions specified in Delegation
Order No. 66 when he was handling the instant case and,
therefore, did not have the authority to settle the case. The
declarations further state that Ms. Beach, Mr. Kaufman’s Team
Manager, did have the authority to settle but did not exercise
her authority by entering into an agreement, or approving any
agreement, settling the Federal income tax liabilities of
petitioner for the years at issue. Petitioner has failed to
counter those declarations with anything but unsupported
allegations. Rauenhorst v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 157, 176
(2002).
It has long been held that “persons dealing with an agent of
the government must take notice of the limitations of his
authority.” Bornstein v. United States, 345 F.2d 558, 562 (Ct.
Cl. 1965); see Graff v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 743, 762 (1980),
affd. per curiam 673 F.2d 784 (5th Cir. 1982); Midwest Motor
Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, 27 T.C. 167, 182 (1956), affd. 251
F.2d 405 (8th Cir. 1958). Petitioner had the responsibility to
determine the extent of Mr. Kaufman’s authority. See Boulez v.
Commissioner, 76 T.C. 209, 214 (1981), affd. 810 F.2d 209 (D.C.
Cir. 1987).
Further, the Commissioner is not bound by an apparent
settlement where an agent is without authority to compromise a
taxpayer’s tax liability. Botany Worsted Mills v. United States,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011