- 10 -
the “proposal” because she did not understand it. She told
Montgomery that this was so and that she wanted to discuss the
“proposal” with her accountant, Joann Ong Tan (Tan), before
acting on it. Montgomery asked Ms. Keil if he could talk to Mr.
Keil about the “proposal”. Ms. Keil replied that the matter was
between her and Montgomery, and she reminded him that she had to
agree to any settlement on her part. She also told him that she
might not necessarily agree with a settlement accepted by Mr.
Keil. Following this conversation, Montgomery transmitted to Ms.
Keil in Hawaii an 18-page facsimile that included an unsigned
copy of the second stipulation of settled issues and Montgomery’s
analysis of the terms of that second stipulation. He also at or
about that time transmitted by facsimile to Tan the same 18
pages, but for a slight change in the message on the cover sheet
and an alteration or deletion of a paragraph concerning payment
concerns, and he stated on the cover sheet addressed to her that
the second stipulation of settled issues represented a “proposed
IRS settlement”. Also on December 14, 2003, petitioners
discussed with each other the status of the case and, more
specifically, the facsimile that Ms. Keil had received from
Montgomery. Mr. Keil expressed no opinion on the second
stipulation of settled issues but stated that he wanted an
accountant first to review it. At or about the same time, Ms.
Keil also spoke by telephone with Tan and explained that
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