- 10 -
Petitioner contends that Mr. Jacob’s receipt of a copy of
the notice of deficiency cannot be imputed to petitioner because
Mr. Jacob did not forward it to petitioner, discuss it with
petitioner, or file a petition with this Court. Petitioner also
contends that there is no evidence showing that Ms. Connor
specifically informed petitioner that she had received the notice
of deficiency.
Regardless of whether petitioner was sent a copy of the
letter that Mr. Jacob wrote to Ms. Connor, the evidence does not
support a finding that petitioner actually received notification
of the deficiency notice. Ms. Connor’s claim that petitioner
told her Mr. Jacob was taking care of the matter was presented in
an affidavit, and respondent did not call her as a witness to
provide petitioner the opportunity to cross-examine her
testimony. Therefore, respondent has not adequately shown that
petitioner knew about the notice.
The cases respondent relies upon in support of the position
that a taxpayer can be held liable for an agent’s act or failure
to act are situations in which the principal claimed that the
agent acted without authority or approval, but where the court
ultimately found that the agent acted with such authority or
approval. See Adams v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 359 (1985); Kraasch
v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 623 (1978). However, these cases do not
focus on the question of whether the taxpayer has the opportunity
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011