context: Here, the government did not engage in affirmative misconduct. While its failure to notify Wright that his case had been transferred to the DOJ -- or provide him with documentation evidencing that transfer -- represents a material omission, it does not rise to the level of affirmative misconduct.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 77 Fed.Cl. 565, 569
citation_a.parenthetical: finding that "the risk of assessing the scope of a government agent's authority is squarely on the private party"
citation_a.sentence: See In re: Dutch Masters Meats, Inc., 182 B.R. 405, 411 (Bankr. M.D.Pa.1995) (finding that an IRS agent’s failure to warn a company that he did not have authority to bind the Service did not represent affirmative misconduct); see also Jordan v. U.S., 77 Fed.Cl. 565, 569 (Fed.Cl.2007) (finding that “the risk of assessing the scope of a government agent’s authority is squarely on the private party”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 182 B.R. 405, 411
citation_b.parenthetical: finding that an IRS agent's failure to warn a company that he did not have authority to bind the Service did not represent affirmative misconduct
citation_b.sentence: See In re: Dutch Masters Meats, Inc., 182 B.R. 405, 411 (Bankr. M.D.Pa.1995) (finding that an IRS agent’s failure to warn a company that he did not have authority to bind the Service did not represent affirmative misconduct); see also Jordan v. U.S., 77 Fed.Cl. 565, 569 (Fed.Cl.2007) (finding that “the risk of assessing the scope of a government agent’s authority is squarely on the private party”).