Geoffrey K. Calderone - Page 10

                                       - 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