Johann Keil and Catherine Keil - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
          deductions, additions to tax under section 6651(a), and                     
          accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a).  The Court                
          calendared the resulting case for trial on the Court’s regular 2-           
          week session in San Diego, California, commencing on October 20,            
          2003 (regular San Diego session), and notified the parties of               
          this action on May 22, 2003.  Montgomery did not prepare to try             
          petitioners’ case at the regular San Diego session but assured              
          Ms. Keil that he would cause the case to be continued until the             
          spring of 2004.  Early in October 2003, Ms. Keil called                     
          Montgomery to ask him about the scheduled trial, and she inquired           
          into whether he was going to prepare petitioners for it.  He                
          reiterated that he was going to have the case continued, and he             
          asked Ms. Keil to give him a good reason to continue the case.              
          He added that the case was not ready to be tried during the                 
          regular San Diego session.                                                  
               Pursuant to Montgomery’s request, petitioners presented him            
          with a two-sentence letter from a medical doctor stating that “I            
          am treating Mr. Keil for an episode of Major Depression.  He is             
          being treated with an antidepressant, Paxil, and cognitive                  
          psychotherapy”.  Montgomery attached this letter to a motion for            
          continuance.  In relevant part, he asserted in that motion that             
          Mr. Keil was suffering from depression and that Mr. Keil was                
          critical to petitioners’ case because he was more actively                  
          involved with the business’s income and expenses than was Ms.               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011