- 22 -
Such is especially so given our finding that Mr. Keil
testified credibly that he never discussed the subject matter of
the audit with Montgomery before December 15, 2003, that he never
had a face-to-face meeting with Montgomery, and that he never
authorized Montgomery to settle this “complex” case. Ms. Keil
also testified credibly that she repeatedly informed Montgomery
that she had to approve any settlement in this case, and
Montgomery had for all practical purposes been retained by her to
represent petitioners as to this matter. Even Montgomery
testified that he always understood that he needed consent from
both petitioners to settle their tax matters and that Ms. Keil
never expressly agreed to settle the case.8
While Montgomery testified that he had established a
relationship with both petitioners where the word of one was
sufficient to bind both, we do not find that such was so. In
addition to the fact that this testimony is inconsistent with the
testimony just noted in the last sentence of the prior paragraph,
the record does not persuade us that Ms. Keil ever allowed Mr.
Keil to speak on behalf of her or to bind her to any agreement
that he made on her behalf. Indeed, the fact that Montgomery
repeatedly called Ms. Keil as to the settlements supports our
contrary finding that he knew that he needed the approval of Ms.
8 We also note that Tan’s testimony was consistent with the
testimony of each petitioner and that Tan during the testimony of
both petitioners was sequestered pursuant to Rule 145(a).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011