-19-
authorized to sign on the taxpayer's behalf, and the taxable year
to which the agreement relates), affd. 758 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir.
1985). Respondent has met his burden of production as to this
issue, and the burden of production now shifts back to petitioner
to show that the consents are invalid.
Petitioner argues that the consents are invalid as to
Leatherstocking’s limited partners for two reasons. First,
petitioner argues that the consents which Steele signed after
June 1990 were signed by him when he had a disabling conflict of
interest vis-a-vis the limited partners in that their personal
interests “radically diverged” so as to make Steele incapable of
extending the periods of limitation beyond December 31, 1990.
Petitioner asserts that such a conflict arose because Steele
signed the consents to avoid his criminal referral for not filing
his Federal income tax returns and to avoid alerting the limited
partners to the fact that he was stealing from them. Petitioner
also asserts that such a conflict arose when Steele was under
criminal tax investigation and that his ability to consent on
behalf of Leatherstocking was compromised when he was in prison.
Petitioner asserts that respondent obviously knew (or should have
known) as of June 1990 that the interests of Steele as to the
Leatherstocking audit were different from the interests of the
limited partners because Kertzner had learned by that time that
Steele was stealing from the limited partners. Second,
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011