Fred Deutsch - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
              By signing Form 4549, Mr. Champion, as petitioner’s agent,              
         agreed to the amounts of petitioner’s liabilities for taxes,                 
         penalties, and interest for the years 1996 through 1998, as well             
         as the immediate assessment and collection of those liabilities.             
         See Hudock v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 351, 363 (1975) (Form 4549 is            
         evidence of the taxpayer’s consent to the immediate assessment               
         and collection of the proposed deficiency).  By signing the Forms            
         4549, Mr. Champion explicitly waived petitioner’s right to                   
         contest in the Tax Court petitioner’s tax liabilities for the                
         years covered in the Forms 4549.                                             
              When a taxpayer executes a valid Form 2848, he is normally              
         bound by the acts performed by his agent pursuant to the power of            
         attorney.  Willoughby v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-398; Lyon             
         v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-351; Lefebvre v. Commissioner,              
         T.C. Memo. 1984-202 (1984), affd. 758 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1985).             
         Petitioner does not dispute that he granted Mr. Champion                     
         authority to represent him with respect to the years at issue.               
         Moreover, petitioner does not claim that the Form 2848 was                   
         invalid.  See Lavine v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-270.                   
              Even if Mr. Champion executed the waivers without seeking               
         petitioner’s consent, petitioner is bound by Mr. Champion’s acts             
         insofar as respondent is concerned.  Respondent had no reason to             
         know that Mr. Champion’s conduct may have been improper.  This is            
         so even if Mr. Champion’s actions did not benefit petitioner.                






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011