Praxiteles, Inc.; Sheldon M. Sisson, a Person Other Thanthe Tax Matters Person, Petitioners-appellants, v. Commissioner Internal Revenue Service, Respondent-appellee, 70 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 1995)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 70 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 1995) Submitted Nov. 17, 1995. *Decided Dec. 5, 1995

Before: FLETCHER, CANBY and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges

MEMORANDUM** 

Sheldon M. Sisson, a person other than the tax matters person, brought this action on behalf of Praxiteles, Inc. Sisson was a shareholder of Praxiteles, a now-dissolved California subchapter-S corporation. Sisson appeals the decision of the Tax Court, which upheld the Internal Revenue Service's Notice of Final S Corporation Administrative Adjustment. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to the IRC Secs. 6226(b) & 6244. We affirm the decision of the Tax Court.

We will not repeat the facts here because the parties are familiar with them. Sisson's only argument on appeal is that the extensions of the limitations period within which to adjust Praxiteles's 1985 tax return were not valid. We affirm the Tax Court's ruling that the extensions were valid.

The question whether the designated tax matters person, Charles V. Bergquist, had authority to sign the extensions involves an application of law to fact, which we review de novo. See Kelley v. Commissioner, 45 F.3d 348, 350 (9th Cir. 1995). Bergquist had been designated as tax matters person in the past, and the regulation provides that a person continues in that role until another person has been designated to be the tax matters person, the tax matters person resigns, or the corporation revokes the tax matters person's designation. See Temp.Treas.Reg. Sec. 301.6231(a) (7)-1T(d), (i), & (j). The Tax Court correctly found that none of these three things occurred. We conclude, therefore, that Bergquist was authorized to sign the extensions.

Finally, the Tax Court found as a fact that Bergquist's signatures on the extensions were authentic. That finding was not clearly erroneous.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.