Johann Keil and Catherine Keil - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         

               Deficiency, after allowance for net                                    
          operating loss carryback                   $16,423.00                       
               No net operating loss carryback claim filed.                           
                    It is further stipulated that there is a                          
               deficiency in income tax due from petitioners for the                  
               taxable year 1994 in the amount of $238,769.00.                        
                    It is further stipulated that there are additions                 
               to tax due from petitioners for the taxable years 1993                 
               and 1994, under the provisions of I.R.C. � 6651(a)(1),                 
               in the amounts of $25,831.75 and $47,869.80,                           
               respectively.                                                          
                    It is further stipulated that there are penalties                 
               due from petitioners for the taxable years 1993 and                    
               1994, under the provisions of I.R.C. � 6662(a), in the                 
               amounts of $20,665.40 and $47,753.80.                                  
                    It is further stipulated that interest will be                    
               assessed as provided by law on the deficiencies,                       
               penalties, and additions to tax due from petitioners.                  
          On January 27, 2004, the Court entered the stipulated decision.             
          The stipulated decision reflected the amounts shown in the                  
          settlement stipulation.                                                     
               On February 4, 2004, Montgomery called Tan on a different              
          matter.  During that conversation, she learned that he had                  
          settled petitioners’ case in full.  Tan then notified Ms. Keil              
          that petitioners’ case had been settled.  On February 27, 2004,             
          petitioners moved the Court to vacate the stipulated decision and           
          to set aside the related stipulations of settlement.  Petitioners           
          asserted in their motion that this action should be taken because           
          Montgomery was unauthorized to agree to the settlements on their            
          behalf.                                                                     





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011