-25-
Conclusion
Petitioners have failed to establish specific facts
demonstrating that Mr. Kauffman or Ms. Miller perpetrated any
fraud on the Court. In particular, petitioners have failed to
show that Mr. Kauffman lacked authority to consent to the entry of
the decisions in these cases or that Ms. Miller, at the time the
settlement agreement was reported to the Court or the stipulated
decision documents were submitted, had reason to believe he lacked
such authority. The mere fact that Ms. Miller previously had
filed documents with the Court stating that Mr. Kauffman was no
longer authorized to act on petitioners’ behalf, does not suggest
that Ms. Miller sought to perpetrate a fraud on the Court by
entering into the settlement agreement. To the contrary, we
believe that Ms. Miller acted reasonably and in good faith by
bringing the issue to the Court’s attention and discussing it with
the Court, Mr. Kauffman, Mr. Kell, and Mr. Gazi. We find that by
13(...continued)
distracted and preoccupied with his wife’s health. We do not
believe, however, that this circumstance explains why Mr. Gazi
would have been wholly inattentive to lining up new counsel,
making trial preparations, or seeking further continuances, if he
actually believed that the trials had been continued until June
30, 2003, as he told Mr. Kell. Indeed, Mr. Gazi had been keenly
focused on petitioners’ Tax Court cases at least since May 2,
2003, when he received respondent’s settlement offers, through
the period that culminated with his June 15, 2003, meeting with
Mr. Kauffman in Baltimore. We do not find credible petitioners’
suggestion, which is supported by no credible evidence, that Mr.
Gazi had ceased to attend to these cases because he was under the
impression that the trials had been continued until some
indefinite future date.
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