- 14 -
contends that he never delegated such authority to Mr. Penn.8 We
reject petitioner’s contention.
Petitioner, acting through Lorant, hired Mr. Penn
specifically to resolve the audit of petitioner’s taxable years
1998 and 1999. On April 22, 2002, petitioner, again acting
through Lorant, executed a Form 2848 appointing Mr. Penn as his
personal representative with respect to petitioner’s income tax
matters for the taxable years 1997 through 2003. We consider
significant that the Form 2848 specifically authorized the
representative to sign consents. Thus, we find that petitioner
gave Mr. Penn authority to represent him before the Internal
Revenue Service, including the execution of a consent form.
Petitioner contends, however, that Mr. Penn was required to
obtain approval from petitioner before executing any consent to
extend the period of limitations. Petitioner further maintains
that had Mr. Penn asked for approval to execute the last consent,
petitioner would not have authorized such action. However, there
is nothing on the Form 2848 or in the record to suggest that Mr.
Penn did not have the requisite authority to execute the last
consent. Thus, petitioner has failed to prove that Mr. Penn
acted outside the scope of his authority.
8 Petitioner does not contend that Lorant lacked authority
to execute the first three consents on his behalf, nor does
petitioner contend that Lorant lacked authority to hire Mr. Penn
as petitioner’s representative.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011