Romney - Ballot Commission Testimony Transcript

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Volume: I
Pages: 1-208
Exhibits: 33
SUFFOLK, ss
STATE BALLOT LAW COMMISSION
SUSAN THOMPSON, )
AARON I. GINSBURG,)
THOMAS P. TIERNEY,)
Objectors, )
)
VS. } Docket Nos. 02-05; 02-06; 02-07
}
MITT ROMNEY, )
Respondent. )
Before:
Held at:
Taken on:
HEARING CONFERENCE
State Ballot Law Commission
McCormack State Office Building
One Ashburton Place
21st Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02120
Monday, June 17, 2002
A P P E A R A N C E S
THE COMMISSIONERS
Maurice H. Richardson, Chairman
Mary Sullivan Kelly
Paul F. X. Powers
Matthew Kane
John F. St. Cyr
Michelle Tassinari
John A. D. Gilmore, Esquire
Hill & Barlow
One International Place
COUNSEL FOR: Susan Thomson, Objector
Joseph D. Steinfield, Esquire
Hill & Barlow
Counsel for: Susan Thompson, Objector
Susan M. Flanagan-Cahill, Esquire
Hill & Barlow
Counsel For: Susan Thompson, Objector
John T. Montgomery, Esquire
Ropes & Gray
COUNSEL FOR: Mr. Romney, The Respondent
Peter L. Ebb, Esquire
Ropes & Gray
Counsel For: Mr. Romney, The Respondent
2
I N D E X
DI:RECT CROSS
By Mr. Steinfield 45
By Mr. Tierney 184
By Mr. Montgomery
191
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
E X H I B I T S
Tax bill of Summit County for 1997
1998 Summit Tax Bill
1999 Summit Tax Bill
Check
Unredacted Summit County tax bill for
1999
Summit County evaluation of property
for 2000
Summit County Property evaluation
and Tax Change for 2000
Tax change for Summit County for 2001
Summit County tax bill for 2001
Letter dated June 4
Letter from Summit County Attorney
Cover sheet for 1999 tax return
Instruction page from Utah
Set of income tax instruction for 1999
3
15 Utah tax form for 2000
16A 1999 redacted 1040
16B 2000 redacted 104 0
17A Tax bill for 171 Marsh Street for 1999
17B Tax bill for 171 Marsh Street for 2002
18 Tax bill for the Wolfboro Property
19 Tax bill for 2000 for Wolfboro
20 Tax bill for 20011 Wolfboro
21 Check
22 1999 sample statement document
23A United Way pledge for 1999
23B United Way pledge for 2000
24 Press release dated 6-6-02
25 Town of Belmont voting records
26 Form one Massachusetts resident
income tax return
27 Massachusetts tax return for 2000
28 Massachusetts nonresidents/ part-year
residents tax return
29 Redacted 1999 tax form
30 Amended tax return for 1999
31A Instructions for nonresident
part-time resident tax form
31B Instruction booklet
32 Redacted tax form for 2000
33A 2000 nonresident part-year tax form
33B Instructional forms
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
5
P R 0 C E E D I N G S
Monday, June 17, 2002
10:10 a.m.
Mitt Romney, a witness called
on by the Objector, having been first duly
sworn by the court reporter, testified on his
oath as follows:
THE COMMISSIONER: First order of
business I'm about to do and That is if I
can find it. I guess I even left it
downstairs. If you have a cell, please turn
it off. I do not want any interruptions. I
can't find mine. It must be downstairs.
Well, good morning ladies and gentlemen. We
are called to order this session of the State
Ballot Law Commission of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. I'm retired Judge Morris H.
Richardson, the Chairman of the Commission.
On my immediate right is our Senior member,
Mary Kelly-Sullivan. And beyond her is
another former Judge out of Wrentham District
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Court, in this case the Honorable John St.
Cyr. On my immediate left is Attorney Paul
Powers. And beyond him is seated Attorney
Matt Kane. And beyond Mr. Kane is a counsel
and clerk, Michelle Tassinari -- Attorney
Michelle Tassinari. And beyond her our
Special Counsel, Attorney Paul Lasour. And
we have before us for consideration today,
actually, three cases although they -- three
objections, although they all involve the
same respondent. And the Objective in the
first case is Susan Thompson and the
Respondent is Willard Mitt Romney. And the
second case we have as an Objector, Aaron
Ginsburg. I don't know if Mr. Ginsburg is
here this morning? Oh, there he is. Good.
Mr. Ginsburg against Willard Mitt Romney.
And the third is Mr. Thomas Tierney, who I
see in the back also, versus Willard Mitt
Romney Respondent and candidate. And on
Friday, as you know, we spent most of the
afternoon dealing with pre-trial matters
including a number of motions and requests.
All of which were acted on and I think
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
there's been a transcript -has been
prepared of that session. Has that been made
available to counsel?
MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes, sir.
MR. STEINFIELD: Yes, it has.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Are
there any other preliminary matters before we
ask the
MR. GILMORE: Yes, Your Honor. I
have served Mr. Romney's counsel this morning
with a second motion to compel production of
documents which relates to a matter that was
discussed at the conclusion of the hearing on
Friday. And with your permission I'll hand
copies of this objection to members of the
panel and then I'll explain what it is.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank
you. I do want to say by the way of a
preamble, we're anxious to get the hearing
underway.
MR. GILMORE: I understand. This
will take, I think, just a minute. We are
too.
THE COMMISSIONER: While he is
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
passing those out I might just note for the
record that the firm of Hill and Barlow is
representing the Objector, Susan Thompson,
represented by Mr. Joseph Steinfield, Mr.
John Gilmore and Ms. Susan Flanagan-Cahill.
While the Respondent, Mitt Romney, is
represented by Ropes and Gray and more
particularly by Mr. John Montgomery and by
Peter Ebb. Mr. Tierney and Mr. Ginsburg are
pro-se. I did indicate that we would start
and go through with the -- with the lead
case, Ms. Susan Thompson versus Romney. Is
that everyone's understanding? Is that
correct, gentlemen?
MR. TIERNEY: Understood.
MR. GILMORE: John Gilmore, Your
Honor. The panel -- The Commission will
recall that when we concluded the session on
Friday there was agreement by Mr. Romney's
attorneys to produce the signature page of
his '99 and 2000 tax returns filed in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts with all
financial information redacted. And if you
look at tabs A and B to what I've handed to
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the Commission members this morning you will
see the information that we were seeking.
Which is -- If you'll see on line forty-
seven there is a place for the signature of
the taxpayer and then right above that there
is a place for the taxpayer to fill in
location of legal residence, parens,
domicile, close parens. It was our
expectation when we concluded on Friday that
we would receive copies of these pages
redacted with Mr. Romney's signature and the
domicile information filled in. On Sunday we
were told by Mr. Romney's attorneys that
they did not possess copies of his '99 and
2000 Massachusetts tax returns with his
signature on them or with his domicile
information completed. And as I
understand -- and we were obviously a little
surprised to find this out on Sunday given
the amount of notoriety that the subject has
had. As I understand the explanation from
Mr. Romney's attorneys is that his tax
accountants, Price Waterhouse Cooper's,
prepared two copies, in each case, of his
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
10
Massachusetts returns and sent them to Mr.
Romney. And that he signed and completed one
and then returned the other, and I'm not
clear, either to the Department of Revenue or
to Price Waterhouse Coopers with the
expectation that Price Waterhouse Coopers in
turn would file it with the DOR. In any
event, the state of the matter is this, that
Mr. Romney represents that he doesn't possess
a copy of this page with his signature on it.
What this motion requests is an order
directing that Mr. Romney obtain the page
either from Price -- or the pages I should
say, either from Price Waterhouse Coopers or
if in the event that Price Waterhouse Coopers
does not have it, from the Department of
Revenue. I should say in addition, that this
morning at 9:00 we served subpoenas pursuant
to Chapter 30A, section 12, on Price
Waterhouse Coopers and we are also seeking to
serve a similar subpoena on t DOR.
Although, of course, today is Bunker Hill
Day. What we would like though -- We think
the simplest way of proceeding is simply an
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
order by the Commission directing Mr. Romney
to produce here tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., a
copy of the page from his '99 and 2000
Massachusetts tax filings showing his
signature and the domicile information if he
completed that when he prepared his return
and sent it back. Thank you.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr.
11
Gilmore. Who would like to response to that?
MR. MONTGOMERY: Your Honor, with
all due respect to Mr. Gilmore, this motion
is a bit of grandstanding. You'll recall
that we agreed to provide this particular
page in response to a request made by Mr.
Ginsburg, not by the Objector Thompson.
After the proceeding we agreed that whatever
we were going to provide to Mr. Ginsburg we
would provide to Hill and Barlow, and we have
done so. Mr. Romney is like many taxpayers
whose tax preparers prepare a duplicate set
of tax returns, one for signature and one to
retain for personal record purposes. It
would be exceedingly unusual and indeed
unwise for a taxpayer to sign two tax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
12
returns. You sign one, you put it in the
envelope and you send it to the DOR. The tax
return that was prepared for Mr. Romney did
not contain an entry for his domicile. Nor
did Mr. Romney insert any information in that
line. He did what he was told to do, just to
sign the return and submit it to the DOR. We
would be glad, as we have told Mr. Ginsburg,
to make a request of the DOR. Which I
suspect, is the only way that we can get this
document. A request that they give us this
page of the return so that we can redact it
and supply it to Mr. Ginsburg and in turn to
Hill and Barlow. The normal time in which to
get such information is two to three weeks.
And we certainly will ask the DOR, when they
are next open for business, which of course
is not until tomorrow, to respond to Mr.
Romney's request and to supply us with that
information. But there's no need here for a
motion and there is absolutely no need for an
order.
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, what are
you prepared to do to try an expedite that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
two to three weeks? This is certainly the
question that's --
MR. MONTGOMERY: We will
13
THE COMMISSIONER: -- in the public
interest I think to have this matter
resolved. I expected it, when we had our
colloquy on Friday that that information that
will -- not necessary the signature, but
certainly the information that -- of the
location of legal residence would be included
on the return. I think the other
Commissioners probably lt -- assume that
they were going to receive that information.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I Don't think--
His -- His tax returns are prepared by Price
Water --
THE COMMISSIONER: Well that may be.
If someone is fortunate --
MR. MONTGOMERY: They didn't
included
THE COMMISSIONER: enough to have
somebody prepare the taxes for them that's
fine, but I still think that we're entitled
to it. And I -- Why don't I issue a -- I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
14
think what I would do, if the Commission
agrees, order the production of it and make
the date on Friday, because the case will not
and have been closed by -- py Friday and
basically by ordering it I'm trying to
demonstrate that the Commission expects a
Respondent to use his very best efforts to
obtaining them. And then to the extent that
they're able to be obtained we have it --
MR. MONTGOMERY: Right.
THE COMMISSIONER: to the extent
that they are not then I would hear a
representations of counsel as to what had
been done.
MR. MONTGOMERY: We will -- We will
absolutely do that. All I -- All I want to
make clear is, this is very important, the
only way that the DOR is going to release
this information is if Mr. Romney requests
it, which we are going to do first thing
tomorrow morning.
MR. GILMORE: But --
MR. MONTGOMERY: So that it's -- I
think it's important to understand that this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
information is not capable of being obtained
by order from a court or from the Commission
but only by the request of Mr. Romney. That
is exactly what we are going to do.
15
THE COMMISSIONER: That's why we are
ordering
MR. MONTGOMERY: That's what--
THE COMMISSIONER: -- Mr. Romney
MR. MONTGOMERY: You don't need --
You don't need to order us to do
MR. GILMORE: That --
MR. MONTGOMERY: -- that. That's
exactly what we're going to do for Mr.
Gilmore.
MR. GILMORE: First of all, Mr.
Montgomery from his statements, he appears to
have reviewed the document because he's
making representations about what is on it
and what is not on it, but if -- if it is
possible could the Commission order the DOR
to produce it tomorrow morning, if that is
feasible or as soon there after as possible.
This is a matter of public importance. I
1
m
absolutely convinced that if the DOR realizes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the significance of this matter that the DOR
is capable of producing that document in an
hour.
16
MR. MONTGOMERY: I would expect that
that this is so.
THE COMMISSIONER: Why don't I do
this. I'm going to issue the order of
production on or before June 21st at 10:00
a.m. and request counsel to obviously use
your best efforts and Mr. Romney to use his
best efforts to obtain them. And if you do
obtain them earlier then share them with
counsel.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes. And with
respect to the comment that I have seen these
documents. What I have seen and what we have
given to Mr. Gilmore is a copy of what Price
Waterhouse sent to Mr. Romney, with respect
to the assertion that Mr. Romney did not
himself do anything other than what he was
asked to do by his accountants, that is sign
the return. I base that on Mr. Romney's
information that he has imparted to me about
which they can examine him as much as would
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
17
like when he testifies today.
MR. GILMORE: That's That's Mr.
Romney's memory of what he did. With all due
respect several years after the event Mr.
Romney's memory, like other peoples, can be
fallible. In any event, anything the
Commission can do to urge DOR to get this as
soon as possible we would greatly appreciate.
And obviously we are going to reserve our
right when we get this information to recall
Mr. Romney and examine him.
THE COMMISSIONER: Oh, yes, yes,
yes. Is that -- Is that agreeable to the
Commission members?
MS. KELLY-SULLIVAN: Yes, it is.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I do wish to point
out that I believe Mr. Gilmore has indicated
that he has served subpoenas today. Perhaps
we ought to discuss that. I don't believe
under the rules he's --he is entitled to do
that without the permission of the panel.
MR. GILMORE: No, I -- Chapter 30A,
section 12, expressly permits an Objector to
serve -- to either request the Commission
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
18
issue an order or to go ahead and serve the
subpoena and then the subpoena parties are
free to come back and move to quash the
subpoena. The subpoenas that we served were
simply -- excluded all financial information.
And simply asked that the last page with all
financial information be redacted and that
the information that -- to be produced was
simply the domicile and and signature
lines. It.is expressly permitted by the
rules. In view of the difficulty we've had
getting this information we obviously took a
careful approach of both issuing the
subpoenas and requesting an order from the
Commission.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. I
have no problem with that.
MR. MONTGOMERY: We have already --
The subpoena has already been complied with
so it is absolutely unnecessary. We've
represented to Mr. Gilmore that we have
provided the documents available --
THE COMMISSIONER: I think we've
come to the end of our discussion of t s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
thing. Are there any other preliminary
matters?
MR. MONTGOMERY: Just one, Your
Honor. And that is that we have a pre-
hearing statement that we would like to
submit.
19
MR. STEINFIELD: Do you have an
extra one? Yes, Your Honor. We also wish to
file a pre-hearing memorandum at this time.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right, you're
giving us some homework already before the
day starts here.
Ginsburg.
MR. GINSBURG: Mr. Chairman?
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr.
MR. GINSBURG: Since our cases were
semi consolidated do you think that the
distinguished attorneys could share the
information they just shared with each other?
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Do you have
copies that could be provided to Mr. Tierney
and to Mr. Ginsburg? Here you are gentlemen.
MR. GINSBURG: Thank you, sir.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. If
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
20
there being no other preliminary matters then
we'll turn the floor over to the Objector to
proceed.
* * * * *
0 P E N I N G S T A T E M E N T S
* * * * *
MR. STEINFIELD: Good morning
1
Mr.
Chairman
1
members of the Commission. My name
is Joseph Steinfield, I represent the
Objector Susan Thompson. With your
permission I would like to make a brief
opening. We live under a government of law
and not of men. John Adams wrote those words
in 1779 and they appear in the Constitution
of Massachusetts which is the oldest
functioning Constitution in the world. Those
words were ratified by the citizens of
Massachusetts in 1780 and they endure to this
day. They sustain our democracy/ they guide
this proceeding. A government of laws and
not of men. No man
1
whether privileged or
humble, rich or poor is above the law. The
citizens of Massachusetts also adopted part
two of the Constitution entitled, The Frame
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
of Government. Article two, which is being
placed before you on the easel, defines who
is eligible to serve as Governor. No person
Excuse me. Yes, that is -- Well, we
need to turn on this machine.
THE COMMISSIONER: Good.
21
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, it is on, but
Well we'll get along without it. You
have before you article two, part two of the
Constitution of Massachusetts, which states,
no person shall be eligible to this office
unless at the time of his election he shall
have been an inhabitant of this Commonwealth
for seven years next preceding. Those words
also endure and that's not simply a matter of
inertia or apathy. Originally candidates,
for the position of Governor, were required
to be of the Christian religion and to own
property of a certain value. Those outmoded
requirements were annulled in the nineteenth
century, but the inhabitancy requirement was
not. It remains as it was in 1780. Well,
who is an inhabitant? The Constitution
answers that question as well. And you can
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
22
see on the monitor and on the screen what the
Constitution tells us, and I quote, "and to
remove all doubts concerning the meaning of
the word inhabitant in this Constitution,
every person shall be considered an
inhabitant for the purpose of being elected
into any office in that town, district or
plantation where he dwelleth or hath his
home. To remove all doubts, it says in the
Constitution and it says it in only one
place, this section. You will not find those
words anywhere else in the Massachusetts
Constitution. That section says, dwelleth or
hath his home. Old fashioned words,
certainly, but nonetheless the standard that
applies in these proceedings. In 1827 when
the memory of the ratification of this
Constitution was still fresh in the minds of
the inhabitants of Massachusetts, the supreme
judicial court decided a case called
President and Fellows of Harvard College
versus Gore. And in that case the court said
that in Massachusetts, unlike England, and I
quote, "a man cannot be inhabitant of two
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
towns at the same time," close quote. The
evidence will demonstrate clearly and
convincingly and by a preponderance of the
evidence that Mitt Romney adopted Utah as his
domicile. He became an inhabitant of that
state. Whether he did so the minute he got
out there in 1999, or perhaps later in that
year, or in 2000, or in 2001, does not
matter. What does matter is that he made
Utah his domicile. Utah became the center of
his domestic, social and civic life and that
is the test stated by our Supreme Judicial
Court in 1974 in the Hershkoff case. Now
that change of domicile may not have been
permanent, nothing in the law says that it
has to be. In fact, our case law says the
very opposite, that if someone intends to
make his home, quote, "for the time at
least," closed quote. Then he becomes
domiciled in that place, and I quote again
from the Hershkoff case. That is this case,
exactly. Mitt Romney worked in Utah full-
time. He lived in Utah full-time. In April
of 2000 he told a Utah reporter that he had
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
established his primary residence in Utah.
He received tax advantages by reason of
having his primary residence in Utah. He
filed his Massachusetts tax returns as a
nonresident. Now we haven't seen the forms
yet, but those tax returns, as you will see,
include a requirement immediately above the
24
si ure line, that the taxpayer fill in his
domicile. Now either he put the information
there or he didn't, but the one thing you can
be sure is, he didn't put Massachusetts down
as his domicile on those tax returns. After
all, he was filing nonresident tax returns,
not once, not twice, but at least three
times. Because in 1999, from the limited
production of documents in this case, we know
that when he filed the first time as a part-
year resident, so called, he apparently
didn't include everything or made some error
because he filed an amended part-year
resident return. And then in the year 2000
he filed as a nonresident. All three of
those documents, signed under the pains and
penalties of perjury, include just above the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
signature line, a place to put your domicile.
And as you will see it's a simple matter of
Massachusetts law. You don't have to go to
Price Waterhouse Coopers. All you have to do
is look at the instruction form and you will
see it. It tells you what that filing status
means. Now, let me take a moment, please, to
place another blow up in front of you. And
perhaps we can put that on the monitor as
well. I want to speak, not about all of the
evidence, but about a portion of evidence
that you will receive beginning with November
of 1998. Mr. Romney owned property in Utah.
And the property, like all property, is taxed
every year. His Utah property was taxed that
year as non-primary improved property. Mr.
Romney moved out to Utah early in. 1999. In
October of that year he got his tax bill, and
what did it show? It showed the property as,
quote, "primary improved property." Well,
Mr. Romney, who owns that real estate, paid
the tax bill. He paid it on November 8,
1999. He didn't have someone else pay it.
He paid it. He paid a bill that showed the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
status of the property and showed that the
property was being taxed, not on a hundred
percent of its value, as it had been the
previous year, but on fifty-five percent of
that value. Now, maybe he requested the tax
break, maybe he did not. Let's assume he did
not. Nonetheless he got it and he got notice
of it beginning in 1999. Now in the year
2000 Mr. Romney files this 1999 Massachusetts
income tax. And by doing so, the very fact
of filing a so called part-year resident
return, he declares himself no longer to be a
domicile of Massachusetts. Everyone, we
assume, files based on what they consider to
be their tax status at the time. Well, then
he amends that return, that is the 1999
return. So he has a second opportunity and,
yet again, does the same thing. And whether
he put down his Utah address or not, and
hopefully the Department of Revenue will
enlighten us on that subject, the fact
remains, he was making a statement. I'm no
longer domiciled in Massachusetts. Having
received a notice and paid for it himself,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
27
that is the tax bill in Utah, late in 1999.
That's the bill that says you own a primary
residence. He tells the reporter, according
to her report, that he has declared the Deer
Valley home his, quote, primary residence."
He tells them, this is my primary residence,
according to her report. We've asked Mr.
Romney to answer in interrogatories telling
us, did you tell her that or didn't you. And
his answer basically says, I don't remember.
So now we come to the summer of 2000. And
the Summit County tax assessor tells Mr.
Romney, again, in writing, this property's
being taxed as a primary residence. He got
it in the mail. In 2001 he files a
Massachusetts income tax return and he calls
himself a nonresident. By doing so, he has
declared himself to be a domicile of Utah for
this very simple reason, if you are domiciled
in this state you must, must file a resident
tax return. You must. He didn't. So what
happened? We have yet another declaration by
Mr. Romney. I've changed my domicile. I'm
out in Utah, I'm a nonresident and I'm now
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
28
domiciled in Massachusetts. Because if I
were, I know the law, I would -- and my tax
advisors know the law, I would file proper
tax returns in Massachusetts, I would file as
a resident. Now we come to 2001. What
happens in August of that year? Mr. Romney,
once again, is notified that his property is
still being taxed as a primary residence.
So, now whether he asked for it or not he's
received tax breaks three years in a row.
Well, in March of this year Mr. Romney makes
an announcement, I'm running for Governor of
Massachusetts. And then what does he do? He
tries essentially, as I said on Friday, to
un-ring a bell. He takes it all back. He
amends his returns. He says, oh, it was all
a big mistake. I didn't mean it when I filed
those tax returns, several of them, saying
that I was a Utah domicile. And so he
changes in 2002 his tax filing status from
part-year resident and from non-year resident
to resident. I would suggest to you that
these, after the fact, assertions of intent
are entitled to little or no weight. Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
29
speak louder than words. Time after time
over the last three years Mitt Romney has
said that he intended to survey the political
landscape and then he would decide whether he
was going to run for office in Utah or in
Massachusetts. He was keeping his options
open. Well, as we point out in the
memorandum I have just filed, that may be how
it was done in England, back in the days of
the rotten borough, when you could live in
one place and run or serve in office from
another. That's not the choice that was made
here in Massachusetts. Here the Constitution
takes a different way. It rejects allowing
someone to do what Mitt Romney wants to do,
which in plain English is, to have his cake
and eat it too. Well, we're here today to
ask that you enforce the Massachusetts
Constitution, the highest law of this state.
This is an important and solemn task and you
will make your decision based not on press
releases, not on thirty second television
commercials, but on the evidence and on the
law.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Steinfield. Mr. Montgomery, would you like
to make an opening now or do you prefer to
reserve until the --
MR. MONTGOMERY: I would prefer to
make the opening now. And with the panels
permission I'd like to do it from over here
on your, right.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right.
MR. MONTGOMERY: If I could just
have a moment to setup.
THE COMMISSIONER: Are you going to
be using this machine?
MR. MONTGOMERY: No.
THE COMMISSIONER: That can be
turned off then now I think. Thank you.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Members of the
30
Commission, my name is John Montgomery
representing Mr. Romney. Let me begin by
first outlining our view of the task that you
face. Then I want to review the absolutely
overwhelming evidence that Mr. Romney is
fully qualified under the Constitution to
serve as our Governor. Your responsibility,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
31
of course, is to apply the established law to
the facts that you're going to hear in the
next day or two. But let me suggest that you
have a higher duty, indeed all of us here
have a higher duty, to educate the public
with respect to the meaning of the
qualification requirements of our
Constitution. And that higher duty arises
here because the assertion that Mr. Romney is
not qualified to serve as our government --
Governor is based upon gross misstatements
and misunderstandings of the requirements of
the law. Let me first display here just some
samples of statements made in the press over
the weekend, to the effect that you were here
to adjudicate a residency claim. That what
was at issue in this proceeding is a seven
year residency requirement that Mr. Romney
must prove that he was a resident of
Massachusetts. And then finally the
assertion that the Governor must live in
Massachusetts for seven years before the
election. Now, as you well know, these
newspaper accounts are wrong. In fact, the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
32
Constitutional requirement, as Mr. Steinfield
said and as you,have known in the exercise
that your responsibilities here must have
been an inhabitant of the Commonwealth for
seven years next preceding the election. Of
the difference between the terms, inhabitant
and resident bares some attention. Now, I
realize that you know the difference, but I
ask that you indulge me for just a few
minutes because there is a considerably wider
audience for this particular proceeding.
This is hardly a typical case. The term
inhabitant you have held and the Supreme
Judicial Court has held, means domicile. And
of course a person may have only one domicile
under the law. Domicile, of course, is the
place of a persons center. The center of his
business in civic and social life. Resident,
of course, is an entirely different concept.
One can be a resident and have a house or
houses in multiple locations. What is clear
is that a person can have more than one
residence and indeed that you can change
residence simply by moving to another place.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
33
It has been clear under our law for many
years, but I cite here a Supreme Judicial
Court case from 1933, that without changing
residence -- Excuse me. Without changing
domicile a person may relocate temporarily to
perform the duties of office or to transact
business or tend to some other temporary
obligation. One can easily change residence
by simply moving temporarily to another
place. Now it is an entirely different
matter when we come here, as we do today, to
talk about domicile. It is actually quite
difficult to change your domicile. Under the
law a man's domicile or a woman's domicile is
-- once established is presumed to continue
even if he or she relocates to a different
place. For a domicile to change there must
be both physical presence in the new place
and a clear intent to remain at that new
place indefinitely. The Constitutional
difference between inhabitancy or domicile on
the one hand and mere residence on the other
hand is not at all surprising. We have a
long tradition in this Commonwealth of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
34
sending our citizens off for temporary
service to the country in a place outside of
Massachusetts. The first and perhaps the
most extreme example is John Adams who
between 1774, when he went to the Continental
Congress and 1801 when he returned at the end
of his presidency, spent only a precious few
years in the Commonwealth in that entire
twenty seven or twenty-eight year period. On
one of his very brief stays in the
Commonwealth he wrote the Massachusetts
Constitution in 1779 and was quickly posted
to France before that Constitution was even
adopted. It would come as a great surprise
to Mr. Adams to learn that under the
Objector's view of the law he was not
eligible at anytime during his public life to
serve as Governor of the Commonwealth because
he did not meet some residency requirement.
It would come as an even bigger surprise to
Mr. Adams if it were suggested that his
domicile or his home was not, during all of
those years, at his farm in Quincy,
Massachusetts. In the final analysis there
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
35
is a focus on residence which has so
dominated the public discourse regarding this
issue trivializes the purpose of the
constitutional requirement inserted in the
Constitution by John Adams. The inhabitancy
or domicile requirement was hardly intended
to imprison potential leaders of the
Commonwealth within our boundaries, but
rather to assure that candidates for Governor
have a deep and abiding connection to the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And in Mr.
Romney's case the evidence will show you that
there is not the slightest doubt that he is
firmly routed in this Commonwealth and has
been for thirty years. Now, I want to review
the basic facts of Mr. Romney's domicile in
the Commonwealth. Between 1971 and 2002 Mr.
Romney has been a resident of Belmont,
Massachusetts. He has owned and maintained a
home in that community. He has been a voter
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts at all
times. He has raised his five children in
Belmont, Massachusetts. He has been a
candidate for Massachusetts public office.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
36
And the center of his social, civic and
business life has been in this Commonwealth.
Now, even the Democratic Objectors do not
contest that Mitt Romney was domiciled in
Massachusetts at least until early 1999.
Well, what happened in Mitt Romney's life
between 1999 and 2002? Well, quite a lot, in
one sense, yet nothing at all that affected
the basic elements of a domicile. Now the
public features of the story of what happened
with Mr. Romney are well known. He was asked
to assume leadership in early 1999 of the
scandal and deficit with the Olympic
Organizing Committee in Salt Lake City, Utah.
He agreed to do so for a fixed three year
period. And he succeeded in that three year
period in restoring confidence in the Olympic
Games, closing that disastrous deficit and
staging one of the most successful Olympic
Games ever to occur on U.S. soil. Now, while
all that was going on, very much in the
public eye, what happened to his private and
public ties to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts? And the answer is they
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
37
continued unabated just as they had. The
evidence is going to show that between 1999
and 2002 that he continued to maintain his
Belmont home. In fact, the evidence is going
to show that when he left for Utah he left
most everything at home in Belmont. Starting
with quite a lot of clothing that he left
behind. He left all of his furniture. All
of his personal records, his birth
certificate, his marriage certificate, and
the like. His books, his family photo
albums. He continued during those three
years to pay the utilities on that property,
the sewer, the cable, the landscaping. He
continued to obtain his property insurance
from his local insurance broker in Belmont
center. Now, these things stayed there. His
home stayed there and all these things st d
in place the entire time that he was in Utah.
Beyond that, of ,course, he continued to vote
in Belmont. He continued to be registered
there and to exercise that singular franchise
1
which is unique to ones domicile. His son
continued and completed High School in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
38
Belmont while he was gone. He continued to
own several cars in Belmont
1
and again
1
to
obtain his insurance from his local insurance
agent. He paid Massachusetts income property
and excise taxes. He returned to Belmont for
key holidays and events. He continued to
maintain his Belmont phone number. He
continued to be list by the Belmont town
registrar. He kept all of his Massachusetts
bank accounts and his investment accounts.
Let me put it differently. He kept his bank
account and his investments in Massachusetts
with the exception of an account that he had
in Utah for purposes of convenience. Of the
one significant social club of which he is a
member is in Belmont Massachusetts and he
maintained that membership. He continued to
contribute to Massachusetts charities that he
supports. He continued to serve on the Board
of Directors of a significant Massachusetts
company and to return here for most of its
board meetings. He kept relationships with
Massachusetts service providers. And I
mentioned the insurance agent again. When
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
39
Mr. Romney and his wife wanted insurance for
'their Utah vacation house, when they wanted
insurance for a car that they purchased in
Utah. They called their local insurance
agent in Belmont Massachusetts to secure that
insurance because this was the center of
their life. This is where the service
providers were that supported their life.
Finally during the time that his -- that time
that he was away his children and
grandchildren continued to live in
Massachusetts. Indeed, from time to time, a
number of them in his home in Belmont. Now,
this extraordinary array of commonsense
evidence that the center of his life, his
domicile was here. And all of this evidence,
I assume, undisputed, leads to the question,
what exactly it is we are going to hear from
the Objectors. And I take it you saw on the
screen a few moments ago the kind of thing
that we're going to see. First, Mr.
Steinfield said something about Mr. Romney's
public statements while he was away. And I
think it important to just note that Mr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
40
Romney is a person who is fortunate to be
qualified to do many things. And it's true
that he attracted, while he was away in Utah,
considerable attention from the press with
respect to his future plans. He -- He
attracted that attention particularly when it
became known that he intended to devote his
life to public service after the Olympics.
So he was asked questions frequently, and
there is a vast public record of his
responses. And what he said repeatedly when
asked about his intentions intentions is
that he would consider all of his options,
but only after he finished his
responsibilities with the Olympic Games. And
with all of the options that were available
to them -- to him he never gave any thought,
the evidence is going to show, to changing
his domicile from Belmont. He never He
never considered for a moment making the home
that he originally began building before the
Olympic opportunity ever arose. Never
considered making it his home, much less his
home for the time being. He simply intended
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
41
to stay there for three years to complete his
position -- his responsibilities with the
Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Now, you've
heard in the opening and you're going to hear
much about Mr. Romney's tax returns. We will
show that Mr. Romney was told by his
accountants, Price Waterhouse Coopers,
correctly, that he was a -- was a Utah
resident for tax purposes because he spent
more than a 182 days there. He was told by
Price Waterhouse Coopers to sign a
nonresident Massachusetts return. That's
exactly what he did. And it made perfect
sense to him that because by law he was a
resident of Utah, which after all is where he
was spending his time, that he must be a
nonresident for tax purposes of
Massachusetts. It does make perfect
commonsense. He never discussed with Price
Waterhouse Coopers any other alternative. He
never considered taking any steps to minimize
his taxes by virtue of filing as a
nonresident in Massachusetts. Indeed, it was
more expensive for Mr. Romney to live in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
42
Massachusetts and to pay Utah taxes. The
suggestion that there's anything untoward
with respect to his Massachusetts tax
returns, which certainly we've heard on
Friday is both shameless and senseless. Now,
he amended his returns after he returned to
Massachusetts when he was informed that he
that a mistake had been made. When he was
informed that he needed to file both as a
resident of Utah and as a resident of
Massachusetts. He did so, he received a
refund and he donated it to charity. Now,
with respect to his Utah property tax status,
Mr. Romney never asked for his property tax
status to be changed one way or the other.
He never requested or filed any document that
lead to the Utah authorities in Summit County
classifying his property not as his primary
residence, but as primary improved property.
That's what it says on his tax bill. He
first became aware that Suffolk - Summit
County had a technical definition of primary
improved property when he read a press
article in the last several weeks. Now, all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
43
of this discussion about primary improved
property and primary residence is a red
herring and completely beside the point. Mr.
Romney was certainly a resident of Utah
during the last three years. And at least
from a commonsense point of view it was his
primary resident -- residence during that
period because he certainly wasn't in
Massachusetts very often. But the fact that
he had a residence, and a primary residence,
in Utah has nothing to do with the location
of his domicile, with the center of his life
here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Now, the bottom line on his time in Utah is
that he lived there doing an important public
service for three years. He paid taxes as a
resident by law, he had a driver's license by
law and that's it. So, what is it about this
case that has generated so much attention?
This case is about making politics
1
it's
about grabbing for that rare opportunity for
the political opposition to examine a
candidate under oath in the hope of scoring
political points. So, Mr. Romney is here and i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
44
so be it. We should get on with it so that
this Commission can make its decision
applying the law to the facts. So Mr. Romney
can return to the campaign trail so that the
voters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
can get on with choosing their next Governor.
Thank you.
Montgomery. Mr. Steinfield?
MR. STEINFIELD: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. The Objector calls Mitt Romney.
THE COMMISSIONER: Before you sit
down, sir, would you raise your right hand.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I will.
THE COMMISSIONER: Do you swear the
testimony that you're about to give in these
proceedings is the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. You
may be seated. And right there we're going
to use as the witness chair by agreement of
the parties.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
* * * * *
D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I 0 N
* * * * *
MR. STEINFIELD: Good morning, Mr.
Romney.
THE WITNESS: Good morning.
MR. STEINFIELD: We are going to
depart briefly from the questions I had
intended to ask
THE COMMISSIONER: Could you just
identify the witness, his name and address
for the record, please?
MR. STEINFIELD: Oh, certainly.
Your name is?
MR. ROMNEY: Willard Mitt Romney.
MR. STEINFIELD: Where do you
presently reside?
MR. ROMNEY: 171 Marsh Street in
19 Belmont, Massachusetts.
20 {By Mr. Steinfield)
21
22
23
24
Q. I'm going to depart briefly from the questions
that I had intended to ask you at the outset
because I have a few questions to raise based on
the opening remarks that your lawyer just gave.
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Just out of curiosity, have you read David
McCullock's book on John Adams?
I have not.
You're a graduate
1
are you, of Brigham Young?
Mm-mm.
And the Harvard Law school?
Mm-mm.
And you know something about American History, I
trust?
I would not qualify as an expert.
Well, do you know whether John Adams ever ran for
Governor of Massachusetts?
I don't.
You don't know?
No.
46
You know that he engaged in public service for the
government, don't you?
Yes.
Went to France
1
became the Vice President served
as the President, you know that?
Yes.
If I represent to you that he never ran for
Governor of Massachusetts
1
you
1
ll except that
won
1
t you?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
47
Yes.
Now, Mr Montgomery said that you own a home here,
put it on his chart. That's not true, is it?
My wife owns our home here. She owns a vacation
home in New Hampshire. I own a home in Park City.
Together we live in those homes and it is my home.
Perhaps I could just repeat the question. You
don't own a home in Belmont, do you, sir?
No.
Or anywhere else in Massachusetts, right?
That's correct.
Now, Mr. Montgomery talked about voting. Matter
of fact, you didn't vote in Massachusetts in the
year 2001, did you?
I don't believe I did, no.
You were in Utah at the time, right?
That's correct. For most of the year.
And you didn't vote but for two or three times in
the years '99 and 2000, isn't that right?
That's correct.
Could have voted in any number of elections that
were held here and did not do so, isn't that true?
Yes.
Even by absentee ballot, isn't that true?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Yes.
Now, we heard in Mr. Montgomery's opening that
your children were living in the Belmont home
while you were living in Utah, right?
I -- Some children were, yes.
Some children.
Not all of my children.
Some children. Using the utilities and the phone
were they?
Yes.
And you paid the bills?
Yes.
48
But they needed light, electricity, heat,
etcetera, insurance because they were residing in
that home, isn't that right?
Yes, and so did I.
Now Mr. Romney, you've been quoted at least twice
in the Utah press stating as early as April of
2000 that you had declared your Deer Valley home
to be your primary residence for tax purposes.
That's what you told the reporter, isn't it?
No.
Well sir, let me refer to your answers to
interrogatories?
1
2
3
4
5
A.
Q.
Can -- Can I be more specific as to what I said
no to?
Well --
THE COMMISSIONER: Allow him to
answer, please. You may answer. Continue.
49
6 (By The Witness)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
You said, you have been quoted in the paper as
having said that. I was not quoted in the
newspapers having said that. There was no quote
from me. It was instead, a statement by a
reporter that Mr. Romney has said the following,
but there's no quote from me in the paper. That's
what I was referring to when I said no.
I stand corrected. Did you tell the reporter that
you had claimed your Utah home as your primary
residence for tax purposes, yes or no?
I don't know because I've met with that reporter
and least a hundred times over the last three
years and I do not recall a specific conversation
about my residence in Utah.
So that's sort of a maybe answer, is it?
It's a don't know answer. It would -- It would
not surprise me that was my residence.
Sir, it would not surprise you if you told the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
A.
Q.
reporter that you had claimed that residence as
your primary residence for tax purposes, am I
right?
I have It would not surprise me that I would
claim Utah as my residence for state tax purposes
because that's exactly what I had done,
Well, let me ask you some questions about this
property that you own out in Utah.
50
MR. STEINFIELD: And Mr. Chairman,
we have placed in front of each member of the
Commission essentially an empty notebook
and --
THE COMMISSIONER: I was wondering
what that was for, the notebook.
MR. STEINFIELD: Mr. Montgomery and
I agreed that that might be an appropriate
procedure, with your permission, as I go
through some of these documents. And perhaps
we could turn on our monitor over here. We
will hand them up to you, of course show a
copy to the witness.
THE COMMISSIONER: That's fine.
23 (By Mr. Steinfield)
24 Q. Now, let me begin if I may, with a document which
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
is your 1997 tax notice from the state of Utah.
Do you have that in front of you?
THE COMMISSIONER: Before you --
Could I just interject one question? A
document relating to the -- the tax bill in
Utah being presented, has that been pre-
marked with a number?
MR. STEINFIELD: No, Your Honor.
Mr. Montgomery and I regrettably were unable
to keep our promise of last Friday --
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that's what
I --
MR. STEINFIELD: -- simply because
of the shortage of time. May that be marked
as exhibit number one?
MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. MONTGOMERY: No objection.
51
THE COMMISSIONER: The document that
has just been given to us which is a tax bill
of Summit County, Utah relating to the
Willard Mitt Romney property for the year
1997, apparently, is marked as Exhibit 1
being offered by the Objector. Exhibit 1.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
(Whereupon the above-described
Tax bill of Summit County for
1997 was marked as Objector's
Exhibit No. 1)
MS. TASSINARI: Can I have another
copy for the stenographer?
52
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. We need one
extra copy for the stenographer, who's ever
sharing copies. Everybody else have a copy?
10 Thank you.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Mr. Romney, Exhibit 1 appears to be your 1997 tax
notice from the state of Utah directed to you in
Belmont, is that right?
It does appear to be that.
And at that time you were taxed mostly on the
land because apparently you didn't have your house
at the time, is that true?
I was taxed on the property. There was no
building on the land, so obviously they made an
error in assessing $50,000.00 of value to a
building that didn't exist.
Well, you were sent this bill showing a value of
the property of $550,000.00, do you see that?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
I do.
And in the next column a taxable value of
$550,000.00, do you see that?
No.
Well, you look right there --
Oh, oh, okay. I was looking below. I see it to
the right. Okay. Uh-huh.
And the tax was assessed and you paid it, right?
Mm-mm. I --
That would be
I -- I presumed the tax was paid, I don't
recall paying it myself. But I presume either my
wife or myself paid it or I would have heard by
now.
I'm sure you paid it Mr. Romney. I'm sure you've
paid all your property taxes in Utah, isn't that
true?
I believe so, yes.
53
Well, let's turn to another document which is your
1998 tax bill.
THE COMMISSIONER: If there is no
objection I would mark this document, 1998
Summit County tax bill for Mr. Romney, as
Objector's Exhibit 2.
54
1 (Whereupon the below-described
2 1998 Summit County tax bill was
3 marked as Objector's Exhibit
4 No. 2)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Now Mr. Romney, Exhibit 2 refers to the same
property, does it not?
Yes, it does.
But now we see a total value of the property of
$2,396,500.00, suggesting that you had your house
up by that time, right?
Well, suggesting that there's been some
improvement to the property. I -- I don't know
if the house was completed at that time or not.
And the tax was based, as you see, under taxable
value on the full one hundred percent of the
assessed value. Do you see that?
Where -
Under the words taxable value?
--where would I find that. I'm looking at the--
Well, you see the two
Oh, over there.
-- evaluations. The same number is right in both
columns --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Mm-mm. Yup.
And the tax was $23,068.00, right?
Yes.
And that was id, was it not?
It was paid by my wife.
The tax was paid was it?
The tax was paid by my wife, yes.
Well, let me turn, if I may, to the next year.
55
THE COMMISSIONER; This would be the
Summit County tax bill or the same property
in question for 1999, I believe. And that is
offered by the Objector and it will be marked
Exhibit number 3 if there is no objection.
15 {Whereupon the above-described
16 Summit County tax bill for 1999
18 Exhibit No. 3)
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Now Mr. Romney, do you see near the bottom of the
document, MR00191?
Yes.
MR. STEINFIELD: And that, members
of the Commission, represents the number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
56
assigned to this document in the course of
the production of documents.
In other words,
the M-R designation by Mr. Montgomery
indicates that they produced that to us and
gave it this number. Am I right, Mr.
Montgomery?
MR. MONTGOMERY: That's correct.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Now Mr. Romney, does this document appear to be
complete as you look at it?
!
1
m not sure what you're asking me?
I'm asking you whether -- I don
1
t see the word
redacted on this document, do you?
No.
Take a look at the document. You take all the
time you need. And tell me whether the document
appears to be complete?
Well
1
it has on it what I focused on which is, I
owe $22,599.73. So for my purposes, yes.
Well sir, do you see where the words, primary
improved property appear?
Yes.
And do you see where market value and taxable
value appear?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Mm-mm.
Do you know whether the original bill had those
numbers on the bill?
I have the original bill.
So do I. Well, --
57
But I don't know whether it did or it didn't. But
I have the bill if you'd like to look at it.
Do you see where there's a handwritten notation,
paid 11-8-91. That's your handwriting, is it?
It is.
And you paid the bill, didn't you?
Yes.
And as a matter of fact, we're going to show you a
copy of that check and offer it as the next
exhibit. If my helpers here
Ms. D'ambrosio
and Mr. McGill are my helpers, Mr. Chairman.
I will note that the bill shows my address as well
who the owner is.
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, you're
offering me a document which if there is no
objection I would mark as the Objector's
Exhibit 4.
(Whereupon the below-described
check was marked as Objector's
1 Exhibit No. 4)
2 (By Mr. Steinfield}
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q.
Well Mr. Romney, that was very helpful of you to
point out that the address on this document, now
marked as Exhibit 3, contains
THE COMMISSIONER: Are you talking
about Exhibit 4, the check?
MR. STEINFIELD: Did I miss one?
THE COMMISSIONER; Are you talking
about 3, the 1999 or --
58
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
MR. STEINFIELD: I'm referring to 3.
I believe Mr. Romney just pointed out that
the address on Exhibit 3 is his Belmont
address.
THE COMMISSIONER: That's also the
same address on Exhibit 4. That's why I'm
confused.
MR. STEINFIELD: Yes.
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
And on Exhibit 4, that was the address on the
check, right? No question about that. Well, let
me show you, sir.
MR. STEINFIELD: If I may approach
the witness?
59
1
THE COMMISSIONER: Certainly.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
A clipping from a Utah newspaper called The Daily
Herald -- you're familiar with that newspaper, are
you not?
I am.
And that clipping is dated June 6. And I
represent to you of this year, all right?
Okay, okay. Uh-huh.
MR. MONTGOMERY: If I may please
interrupt. Are you, Mr. Steinfield, going to
make copies of this document available to us
so we can follow this portion of your
examination?
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, I apologize
Mr. Montgomery. I only have this one copy,
but I'll be happy to share it with you at the
recess. Mr.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Excuse me. May I
approach and look over your shoulder and read
this document --
MR. STEINFIELD: With the Chair's
permission.
MR. MONTGOMERY: With your
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
permission.
MR. STEINFIELD: I have no
objection.
60
THE COMMISSIONER: Sure, you can all
go up there. Fine. Sure.
THE WITNESS: Come on down.
MR. STEINFIELD: Happy to -- Happy
to have you here, John.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Now, let me quote to you a paragraph appearing in
this Associated Press report which I have
highlighted, quote, "Romney said, he didn't see
the property tax bills for his 3.8 million dollar
home in Park City because the home was in the name
of his wife Ann and she paid the tax bills."
That's what the press reported, right?
Often wrong.
One thing at a time Mr. Romney. We'd get along a
lot better if you answer the questions. I'm sure
that the Chair and the Commission would prefer
that as well. That's what the press reported?
That's exactly right. That's what they reported.
The Associated Press?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
61
Exactly right. Or the Daily Herald. I don't know
if it's the Associated Press, but it's the Daily
Herald at least.
Well; I want to clarify that with you and I'll
direct your attention
There it is. It says the Associated Press.
Now, you have assistants and campaign people and
so on, keeping track of the press, don't you?
Yes.
Tell me, sir, have you or anyone on -- have you or
anyone on your behalf notified the Utah newspaper
that you deny what's in the report that I just
showed you? Yes or no?
Did not notify the Utah paper, no.
In fact, in your past when you've seen newspaper
articles with which you've taken an issue, you've
gone so far as to write letters to the press
saying you've got it wrong, haven't you?
On rare occasions, yes.
You've done it?
I have done it.
So what you're suggesting to me is that the Utah
newspaper and the Associated Press have quoted you
incorrectly, is that what you're saying?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
It was corrected in the Boston Globe.
Sir, are you saying that the Associated Press
misquoted you when stating, Romney said?
Correct.
Now if we may, I'd like to turn to the 1999 tax
bill which you've offered to give us, but we
happen to have a complete copy as well.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. This
appears to be an copy of a --
Exhibit 3.
MR. STEINFIELD: I believe this is
exhibit five, Honor.
THE COMMISSIONER: This would be
14 exhibit five, but I'm identifying it as an
15 unredacted copy of Exhibit 3, being the 1999
16 Summit County tax bill for the Romney
17 property there.
19 unredacted Summit County tax
20 bill for 1999 was marked as
21 Objector's Exhibit No. 5}
23
24
Q.
Now Mr. Romney, you have Exhibit 5 in front of
you, do you?
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
63
I do, yes.
And right behind you we have both Exhibit 3 and
Exhibit 5. And the document on the right, Exhibit
5, that's the one you were offering to give me a
few minutes ago, is that right?
I actually don
1
t have the section at the top
right, I don't believe. I have the original of
this, but I don
1
t have this.
In other words, you
1
ve got the document which is
now Exhibit 5 showing the value and the taxable
value, right?
That's What I have is -- What you,re calling
Exhibit 3 is what I have the original of and we've
produced for you. What I don't have the original
of is this one.
Well sir, what you produced for me, Exhibit 3, is
missing some value and tax information, isn't it?
Yes.
And you see over to the right, Exhibit 5, with the
seal of the tax assessor in Utah, contains that
information, does it not?
Yes.
And it also contains, and I'm now pointing at it,
some change of address information. Do you see
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
A.
Q.
that?
Yes.
Now --
64
THE COMMISSIONER: Am I correct that
that -- the reason that that's missing from
Exhibit 3 is that is the part that the
taxpayer clips out and sends back with his
check.
MR. STEINFIELD: You've -
THE COMMISSIONER: That's why it's
blank --
MR. STEINFIELD: You anticipated my
next question. I assumed the same thing.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
You sent in, did you, the perforated section in
the upper right hand corner?
I can only say I presume so. I don't have a
present memory of what I sent back in 1999.
Well now this document, the 1999 document, was
sent to you at your Belmont address, once again,
right?
Correct.
You pointed out earlier to me that the previous
document showed sent to you in Belmont?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Correct.
All right. So would I be correct that when you
paid this bill, and we know that you paid it, you
sent in your change of address form?
I -- I actually don't know.
Well, we'll find out.
We would surely notify them of a change of
address, yes.
And when you look at this document, which is
Exhibit 5, you will see that the property is
called primary improved property. Do you see
that?
Yes.
MR. STEINFIELD: Excuse me, sir.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Now, you'll also see on Exhibit 5, a market value
of $3,795,882.00, right?
Correct.
Now, according to my calculator that's increased
in market value from the previous year of
approximately $1,400,000.00, okay?
Mm-mm.
Now you see on this document, the one we got from
the assessor, that you also have a taxable value.
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
What is that figure, sir?
It's $2,087,735.00.
And if you take that figure and divide it by the
market value I represent to you it's fifty-five
percent. Okay?
I trust you.
So, you got a tax bill and you paid it.
Correct.
66
And wrote down right on Exhibit 3, in your own
hand, paid 11-8-99. Sir, did you see immediately
above where you wrote paid 11-8-99, that the value
had gone up by $1,400,000.00 and that you were
being taxed on only fifty-five percent. Did you
see that?
No. May I explain my answer?
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, I -- I don't
18 (By The Witness)
19
20
21
A. Can I --
MR. STEINFIELD: -- know that it
calls for an explanation. Either he saw it
22 or he didn't.
23 (By The Witness)
24 A.
But -- But I -- Part of your answer is yes,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
part of the answer is no. You said -
Well, that's different.
67
Did I see Did I see that the property go up by
a million or some odd thousand dollars, no.
Because I did not --that's - that's not a figure
on this piece of paper. You did that with your
calculator, as you said. And I did not see the
prior year tax bill because my wife paid that one.
I did however, see the second part of your
question. Potentially, I do not recall having
read the numbers on this form. So it
1
S possible I
-- I would have seen it. It would not have
surprised me to have seen it because I was living
in this property primarily. And to see primary
improved property would not have surprised me at
all. Could I have seen it? I sure could have. I
do -- do not have a -- a present recollection of
seeing those figures, but I may well have.
Well, the tax that you paid which is reflected on
Exhibit 5, is roughly $500.00 less than the tax
for the previous year. Were you aware when you
paid this tax in 1999 that although the value of
your property had gone up by $1,400,000.00 your
tax bill was going down by $500.00?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
68
No.
You didn't ask your wife what the tax was the
previous year?
That's correct.
And you just weren't keeping--
THE COMMISSIONER: At some point I
think we ought to take a mid-morning break.
MR. STEINFIELD: Sure.
THE COMMISSIONER: I don't want to
cut into the key time in your testimony or
any of your testimony but, --
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, Your Honor,
hopefully it's always a key time.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Why
don't we take a recess now. Let's try to
limit it to ten minutes and then we'll come
back and we'll go to 1:00 and take a luncheon
break. Stand in recess.
(Off The Record}
THE COMMISSIONER: We can proceed,
Mr. Steinfield.
MR. STEINFIELD: Thank you, Judge
23 Richardson.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Mr. Romney 1 just to pick up where we left off and
perhaps I
1
d go back for a minute to the Utah tax
bill. You were telling us before the break--
And I'm now pointing-- If you'll just turn
briefly to a document that you produced which is
Exhibit 3. There's some information missing from
that document, right?
Yes.
Now you know that the document is a public
document, don't you?
Yes.
69
And that I or anybody else can walk into the
assessor's office and get it just the way it looks
on Exhibit 5?
Yes.
So why did you take that value and taxable value
off the document before you produced it Mr.
Romney?
I didn't.
I'm sorry, I thought you told me before that you
produced this document?
Well, meaning my legal team produced the
documents. I provided the original bill to my
legal team and we have the original bill and we'd 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
be happy to show it to you.
Well, as you see I have it. I didn't get it from
your legal team and you don't know why the
information was taken off the document, is that
true? Is that true?
I don't know if it was taken off the document.
Well look at it.
I don't see it there, but I don't know if it was
taken off the document --
Well --
-- or if it was there originally or not.
Well just a minute --
THE COMMISSIONER: Gentlemen, let's
move along here please.
70
15 (By Mr. Stanfield)
16
17
18
.19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Mr. Romney, you know it's on the original document
because you have that document right behind you,
don't you?
Is this the document that was sent to me?
Yes, sir.
So that's literally the same piece of paper as
that piece of paper?
Yes, sir.
No 1 it's not. That's a piece of paper that
1
s kept
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
by the county of their information. It includes
information I don't have now. This is what they
send to me, this is a copy of what they sent to
me. So they're copies. I don't know what the --
what my copy has on it, whether it has it filled
in or not. But if it's been redacted it was not
redacted by me personally it would have been
redacted by the legal firm.
MR. STEINFIELD: Mr. Montgomery,
maybe you can help us out?
71
MR. MONTGOMERY: Well, I would be
glad to the extent that this is a mystery
that you're interested in, Mr. Steinfield, to
try to determine whether someone in my office
who took the document from Mr. Romney and put
it on a copying machine may have in some
manner obscured or eliminated the value on a
document which, as you've said, and as Mr.
Romney has said, is a public document. And I
would be glad to let you know after the lunch
break if I can determine the source of
this --
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, obviously
it has been -- it has been redacted. And
obviously the item is missing the market
value and taxable value, total values. So
somebody intentionally took -- also took off
the notation that it was paid on 11-8-99 to
make it look like it was 11-8-91.
MR. MONTGOMERY?: Well, let me say
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
that
that the instruction in my office was
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
that if anything was redacted there was
supposed to be a stamp affixed to the
document showing that it was redacted. I
will determine whether an --
MR. MONTGOMERY: -- error was made
here and I think we can --
THE COMMISSIONER: If you could
clean that up after --
MR. MONTGOMERY: -- remove this
before
THE COMMISSIONER: lunch that
20 would be helpful. Thank you.
21 MR. STEINFIELD: Thank you, Mr.
22 Montgomery.
24 Q.
Let me then turn to the notice that you received
1
2
3
4
from Summit County for the year 2000.
MR. STEINFIELD: And I'm going to
ask that that be marked as exhibit six.
THE COMMISSIONER: The document
5 titled the Summit County evaluation of the
6 property in question for the year 2000 is
7 received into evidence at the request of the
8 Objector and marked Exhibit 6.
10 Summit County evaluation of
73
11 property for 2000 was marked as
12 Objector's Exhibit No. 6)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Now, Exhibit 6 is copy of a notice sent to you,
right?
It appears to be so.
Sent to you in Utah, right?
That's correct.
And it describes the property that you own in Utah
solely in your name. And you refer to the lower
right hand corner as primary improved property, do
1
you see that?
It refers to it as primary improved property, yes.
1
And if you look up in the middle of the page on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A.
Q.
the right hand side you'll see the following
words, if this parcel is a primary residence
74
I don't see where you're reading from. I'm sorry.
Well let me
the witness?
THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.
8 {By The Witness)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
This center of that column over here, this
paragraph?
If this parcel is a primary residence or a long
term rental your property type should read primary
improved property. Do you see that?
I do.
Well, it wasn't a long term rental was it?
No.
It was your primary residence, was it not?
In the colloquial sense of the word, yes.
Well, in the tax purposes sense of the word it was
your primary residence, was it not?
No.
Well, let's take a look at the bill for that same
year. You're just looking at the notice.
MR. STEINFIELD: NextYour Honor, we
will offer the year 2000 bill and ask that
that be marked as exhibit seven.
75
1
2
3
THE COMMISSIONER: The Exhibit 6 was
4 a notice of property evaluation and tax
5 change where -- what's now being marked as
6 Objector's Exhibit 7 if there's no objection
7 thereto is the actual bill for that year 2000
8 by Summit County tax officials.
10 Summit County tax evaluation
11 for 2000 was marked as
12 Objector's Exhibit No. 7}
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Do you recognize this to be yourtax bill for your
Utah property for the year 2000?
I do.
And do you see market value $3,795,882.00?
I do.
Do you see taxable value of $2087 --
$2,087,735.00?
Yes.
And do you see that you were taxed on the lower
amount in the sum of $22,449.00?
I do.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Now you know sir, do you not, that the tax break
that you got for that year was approximately
$18,000.00?
76
Oh, I'm sorry. The tax break. I know that now, I
did not know that then.
And the same for the previous year, 1999?
Yes.
And as we're about to see the same for the
following year 2001. You know that don't you?
Yes.
Did you ever notice for three years in a row that
you were getting this tax break in Utah?
No. But it wouldn't have surprised me either.
MR. STEINFIELD: Your Honor, the
next document, the 2001 notice, please be
marked as exhibit eight?
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. There
be no objection then that will be so marked
being offered by the Objector. Exhibit 8 is
a notice of property evaluation and tax
change for Summit County for the year 2001 on
the property and consideration.
tax change for Summit County
77
4
5
6
7
8
Q. So it simply never occurred to you Mr. Romney, not
withstanding your legal training, that this term,
primary residence, had some special importance for
property tax purposes, is that true?
MR. MONTGOMERY: Objection.
9 (By The Witness)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
It says primary improved property.
Let me state the question again perhaps.
Okay.
It never occurred to you that the classification
of this property as your primary residence and as
primary improved property had some tax
significance under the Utah law. Is that what
you're telling us, it never occurred to you?
Well, I didn't see the bills you're showing me. I
saw one bill which was 1999.
Now can you answer my question?
I'm not sure I understand your question.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Objection. There's
23 no foundation for the question.
-:1'"1 }/. /-....... J I ...... -- ----
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
A.
Q.
Well you say you never saw the bill --
My wife --
you paid in '99. You don't recall as you sit
here today whether you saw the 2000 bill or not,
do you?
That's correct.
78
And you don't recall as you sit here today whether
you saw the 2001 bill, do you?
That's correct.
All you are telling us, because somebody went and
looked, is that your wife wrote the check, isn
1
t
that right?
That's correct.
Now sir 1 Exhibit 8 is a notice received by you
again describing the property as a primary
improved property, your primary residence. Do you
see that? Same spot on the document as on the
prior one.
I'm just looking to find it.
Let me assist you.
Okay.
Yes, I see it there.
But when you get bills telling you that you owe
money, you receive them, do you read them?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Depends on the bill. I do read the amount I owe
and I write the check and send it in.
But if you see something incorrect do you do
something about it?
If I see something and I believe it's incorrect I
do something about it.
All right. So you received this bill and nothing
was done to change or correct it at the time.
Isn't that right?
This bill was received at my home. I don't know
whether I saw it or not. Nothing was done to
change this bill, that's correct.
Let's look at the bill for 2001 next please.
Isn't that 2001?
That was the notice, now you're looking at the
bill.
Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, okay.
THE COMMISSIONER: It's suggested
that would become Exhibit 9 if there's no
objection is the offer on the part of the
Objectors of the Summit County tax bill for
the year 2001. Exhibit 9.
79
Summit County tax bill for 2001 .
80
2 Exhibit No. 9)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
You have before you a tax bill dated October 23,
correct?
Correct.
And the previous notice was dated August 1. So
within the space of three months you received both
the notice and the bill, right?
Correct.
And on the bill you're now considering Exhibit 9
for the fifth time and the assessor's office has
informed you of a distinction between your
assessed value and your taxable value, isn't that
right?
Yes.
And for the fifth time you've been informed in the
years 1999, 2000 and 2001 that you're only being
taxed on a portion of the value of that property,
isn't that right?
I would have to make that deduction if I followed
that, but I -- it's not apparent from the form,
but it is upon inspection here apparent.
Now you learned sometime within recent weeks that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
A.
Q.
you weren't entitled to the tax break you got, is
that right?
That's correct.
Well, I'm going to show you a document, sir, that
has been produced, a draft of a letter.
THE COMMISSIONER: They're showing
me what appears to be a copy of a letter, a
note dated June 4, 2002 to Mr. Romney at his
Belmont address from Barbara Kresser, tax
assessor. You're offering that into
evidence?
MR. STEINFIELD: I am, as exhibit
ten.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Any
objection thereto?
THE COMMISSIONER: Received into
18 evidence without objection and marked as
19 Exhibit 10.
20 (Whereupon the above-described
21 letter dated June 4 was marked
22 as Objector's Exhibit No. 10)
24 Q.
Now Exhibit 10, Mr. Romney, appears to be an
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
unsigned letter produced by you and bearing a
number at the bottom, MR41, do you see that?
82
I do see the number at the bottom. You say
produced by me, you mean the documents produced by
me?
Well the M-R means that you produced
Produced the document, yes. But not the letter.
If you look at this letter it appears to be a
letter to you, unsigned, from the tax assessor,
right?
Correct.
But in fact, it's a letter written on your behalf,
isn't that right?
I -- I --
Sir?
I have not seen this before so I can't tell
you that answer.
You know that a letter was sent to Ms. Kresser and
that that letter asked her to sign a letter to
you, don't you? You know that.
I know that a letter was drafted for her and I
have not seen that letter, that's why I told you
that I can't tell you if this is that letter. But
I know that a letter was given to her as a draft, ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
yes.
And your lawyers had a draft letter and produced
it from their files. You know that don't you?
I'm sorry?
You know that your lawyers produced this so
called
Yes.
- letter?
Yes. And provided it to you, yes.
Doesn't make much sense that your lawyers would
have a copy of a draft letter written by someone
else, does it?
No.
Of course not.
83
Now, this is a letter dated June 4 -- a draft
rather. It says, quote -- take a look at
paragraph two. "Even though you did not request
the exemption you are still entitled to it.n
That's what it says.
It does, yes.
But you just told the Commissioners a few moments
ago that you've known for sometime that you
weren't entitled to that exemption.
I didn't say that, no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Well, perhaps I misunderstood.
Okay.
Didn't you know on or before June 4 that you had
been given a tax break to which you are not
entitled?
No. May I clarify that then?
Well
MR. MONTGOMERY: May he -- May he
continue?
THE COMMISSIONER: I'll allow the
witness to clarify it.
84
MR. STEINFIELD: Excuse me, Your
Honor. If this witness is going to testify
to the attorney client discussions or tax
advisor discussions that he wants to talk
about then I would suggest he opens up those
discussions for further inquiry. I make that
observation for what it's worth.
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that might
be something we can consider another time.
But the witness wants to clarify his answer
and I merely wanted to give him the
opportunity to --
MR. STEINFIELD: Certainly.
1
2
3
THE COMMISSIONER: -- do.
MR. STEINFIELD: Certainly.
THE COMMISSIONER: You may clarify
85
4 your answer.
5 (By The Witness)
6 A. My understanding prior to the discussions with
7 this tax assessor, and I presume on the day of
8 June 4th because that's when this draft letter was
9 made, was that the term primary residence meant
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the place we were going to be, we were living most
of the time or primarily. And therefore we were
entitled to a primary residence deduction or - or
Yeah, deduction if that's what you call it.
What I've What I subsequently learned, whether
it's the fourth or the fifth, but I think it was
the day of the fifth, was that in addition to
being the place where you primarily live you are
suppose to have filled out a document and filed
that document, which I never did. And therefore I
would not be entitled to that deduction. So by
virtue of my failure to fill out the form and
comply with the requirements of the formI would
not be entitled to this deduction. Therefore,
prior to June 4th-- or let's say the morning of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q.
A.
June 4th, I would have thought I was entitled to
the deduction. Upon receiving full information
June 4th and thereafter I learned I was not
entitled to it.
So what you just told us is
1
that you learned at
some point on or after June 4, that you were not
entitled to this tax break because you didn
1
t
request it, right?
Correct.
86
10 Q. Well look at the letter, quote, "even though you
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
did not request the exemption you are still
entitled to it." That's what the letter says.
That's right.
And this letter was written by one of your
advisors to the tax assessor, isn't that true?
Correct.
And she wouldn't sign it, would she?
Because it's incorrect.
And now sir, if I understand it correctly
1
after
she wouldn't sign that letter you turned around
and asked that they correct in the year 2002 a tax1
break that you got in '99, 2000 and 2001, is that
right?
I don't understand.
Could you rephrase the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Q.
A.
87
question? I don't understand it.
Well, haven't you now asked that they change it
back again as a sort of an amendment of some sort?
I haven't been in touch myself with the tax
assessor. I don't know if my attorneys have
either. I don't believe we have been in touch
with them. But I
1
ve spoken publicly saying I
1
m
happy to pay if they determine that I owe it.
MR. STEINFIELD: May I approach the
witness?
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
This is a letter from the county attorney in Utah
dated June 12th
1
2002. Let me hand that to you.
Now please look at the second page, last
paragraph. Quote, at this junction Mr. Romney
has requested that the error be corrected,n do you 1
see that?
I do.
Well
1
did you or didn't you ask that the error be
1
corrected, sir?
The question was whether I
1
ve contacted them to
request this. I have not spoken with Summit
County about this issue and I did however speak
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
publicly saying that I would be happy to pay any
addition that's owed by virtue of their
determination.
88
So are you suggesting to this Commission that the
County attorney in Summit County Utah was reading
the newspapers and saw that you rna a request
that the error be corrected and that is how the
statement I just quoted made it into his official
report, is that what you're telling us?
No, I'm telling you that I did not contact the
Summit County attorney or the assessor.
So that the
I don
1
t know how they reached that
conclusion but I -- and I won
1
t speculate.
So that the statement by the Chief Civil Deputy in
the County Attorney's office, a man named David L.
Thomas, that you requested that the error be
corrected is incorrect
1
is that your testimony?
Just a moment ago you said did he take it off the
newspaper. And I
1
m saying he may have taken it
off the newspaper, I don't know. All I'm saying
is I did not speak with him, he may have read my
comments in the media or in the Daily Herald as
you showed a moment ago.
.. /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
89
So you're unable to tell us whether you have or
have not requested a correction of your tax status
in Summit County?
I have to the public said I'm happy to pay any
additional tax I owe.
But did you notify the taxing authorities that you
wanted to fix it or didn't you?
They seemed to already be aware of that.
Did you notify them?
No.
MR. STEINFIELD: I'm going to offer
the letter now produced my Mr. Romney's
counsel.
THE COMMISSIONER: Being offered is
a letter on the letterhead of Robert W.
Atkins, County Attorney, Summit County
Attorney. Being a three page letter dated
June 12th from the Chief Civil Deputy, David
Thomas to Mr. Atkins who is a Summit County
Attorney
1
relating to the primary residential
property tax exemption of Willard Mitt
Romney. And I
1
m not hearing any objection
and I will receive the document in question
being offered by the Objector
1
S as Exhibit
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
11. One one.
letter was being marked as
Objector's Exhibit No. 11)
MR. STEINFIELD: Thank you, Your
Honor. I direct the attention of the
Commissioners to the second page of Exhibit
11. First sentence of the last paragraph on
90
9 page two.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q. Let me turn next from the property taxes to your
Utah tax filings, Mr. Romney. And I'm going to
begin with the tax return that you filed in 1999.
THE COMMISSIONER: I have before me
a copy of what appears to be a cover sheet of
the 1999 Utah Individual Income Tax Return
Form with respect to Mr. Willard M. Romney
and Ann D. Romney at 3853 Rising Star Lane,
Park City and this is -- basically it has no
figures. It's either been redacted or it's a
blank copy which only the name and marital
status are included. No. It also indicates
a part-time residence statement. This would
be Exhibit 12 with no objection thereto.
91
1
2 THE COMMISSIONER: It may be so
3 marked being offered by the Objector.
5 cover sheet for 1999 tax return
7 Exhibit No. 12)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Now Exhibit 12, Mr. Romney, is your state income
tax in Utah for '99, right?
Yes.
Before we talk about that return.
When did you move out to Utah?
I first arrived on February 11th of 1999.
And did you remain more or less continuously in
Salt Lake City from February of '99 to the end of
the year?
Actually there was some transition away from my
work in Boston for the first few months and then I
pretty much stayed there after.
Well, when you say there was some transition, were
1
you out in Utah pretty much full-time starting in '
February?
I'd say the majority of my time. But I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
actually-- and that's a guess. I actually could
probably look day by day, if necessary, on
calendars, but I'd say primarily, yes.
Okay. So from February through the end of the
year you were pretty much full-time out in Utah
right?
92
Well again, the beginning of the year was a good
deal of time back and forth, but towards the last
half of the year it was pretty much exclusively in
Utah.
Well, you were in Utah much of the time in the
first half of the year and pretty much all of the
time in the second half of the year?
That's right.
Right? So that would make, if I understand the
testimony, that you were in Utah for a
considerable majority of 1999, much more than just
the latter six months, right?
I would I would prefer not to guess. I
believe I can get accurate information on that.
Well, I'm asking you for your memory, here we are,
1
you're testifying now, you've told us you were
there a good deal of time the first half of the
year and most of the time the second half of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
93
year. Have I put that right?
What I can tell you is that over half the year was
spent in Utah, yes.
Well, take a look at your filing status on line
twenty-two, do you see that?
Mm-mm.
How did you file?
Part-year resident from July 1st '99 to December
31 at ' 9 9 .
And do you know how many days that is?
No.
It's 184 days. All right.
Mm-mm.
February's a short month. And as a matter of
fact, you became a part-year resident of Utah
before July 1 of 1999, didn't you?
Well, .I'm not familiar with the legal definition
and so I would have to look at the exact number of
days I spent month by month to know what is being
referred to.
Well, you recalled pretty well the day you went
out to Utah in February. And in fact, you gave a
speech to the Utah Senate on the 16th of February
1999. Do you recall that?
1
2
3
4
A.
Q.
94
I do.
And let me quote from that speech --
THE COMMISSIONER: What was the
date, sir?
6
7
8
9
10
11
Q.
and see if you recall --
MS. KELLY-SULLIVAN: February 1 6 ~ .
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.
MR. STEINFIELD: Excuse me.
February 16.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
Let me see if you recall -- Better yet, let me
show you the speech and you won't have to test
your memory?
Honor.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Objection, Your
Could we have these documents
distributed before they,re shown to Mr.
Romney for the benefit of both the Commission
and counsel.
MR. STEINFIELD: Your Honor, I think'
it's standard procedure to show documents to
witnesses. I happen to have a copy here.
I'll be glad to give it to Mr. Montgomery.
I
1 see no point in encumbering the record with
2 every document that I may wish to use.
3 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. All right.
4 You may proceed and just show it to him. If
5 you're going to offer it, it has to be
6 offered by one of you gentlemen.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
This is a copy of the Senate Journal from the
state of Utah, do you see that?
Yes.
You were discussing with the state Senators in
Utah the difficulties and the challenges you had
taken on in connection with the Olympic Games,
isn't that true?
Correct.
And you said, and I quote, "and we will have the
joy of having these great games in our home
state
1
" do you see that?
I do --
And those
-- but that does not refer to me.
Just a second.
Okay.
One question at a time
1
Mr. Romney. Those were
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
your words were they not?
Those were my words, yes. The pronoun does not
refer to me.
The words The word used was not your home
state was it?
No.
96
Now returning, if I may, to your tax return. Did
you understand the significance of filing as a
part-time resident - the legal significance, did
you?
I'm not sure I understand the full legal
significance of that, but I understood that I was
a part-time resident, that I was filing a part-
time resident tax form, yes.
Well, did you understand that a tax return has
legal significance?
Yes.
And did you understand, based on your education
and legal training, that words used in tax returns
and tax laws don't always have what a lay person
might consider to be their legal mean, you knew
that?
Yes.
Now, you know also that when the tax return
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
arrives in the mail from where ever it comes from
you get an instruction sheet, don't you?
I actually don't but in this case --
Well, regular taxpayers get those, you know that?
That's correct.
I'm going to show you -- And you don't get it
because your tax return gets sent to Price Water
House?
97
Yes. My tax return is prepared by Price Water
House. It may come to my home, but I don't review
that. All tax documents are forwarded to Price
Water House for their review.
Well, I'm going to show you a page if I may. Just
one page from the Utah instructions and I believe
we have a -- an enlargement of that one page. Not
the full set just the one page.
THE COMMISSIONER: Is this being
offered as an exhibit, Mr. Steinfield?
MR. STEINFIELD: Yes, I have the
full instruction sheet, Mr. Chairman. But I
saw no need to put in all those pages and so '
we simply copied this portion if that's
agreeable?
THE COMMISSIONER: That's -- Any 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
objection?
MR. MONTGOMERY: Your Honor, let me
just review the document. Are you saying
this is from
MR. STEINFIELD: Let me just show
Mr. Montgomery t h ~ t we xeroxed it correctly.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Can you give me a
full document?
MR. STEINFIELD: Certainly. We'll
be glad to give you a copy of a full
document.
98
MR. MONTGOMERY: I have no objection
to marking this page so long as I receive a
copy of the full document.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. And
you're being offered a copy of the full
document as we speak. So as received in
evidence and being offered by the Objectors.
And that is Exhibit 13.
instructions from Utah was
marked as Objector's Exhibit
No. 13)
MR. STEINFIELD: It turns out, Mr.
99
1 Chairman, you can get almost anything on the
2 internet including these instructions.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q. And that Exhibit 13, Mr. Romney, defines what
people out in the Utah -- the tax people mean by
part-year resident, do you see that?
MR. MONTGOMERY: Objection. If that
is a representation by Mr. Steinfield that is
one thing, but it is an inaccurate
description of the contents of the full
package of instructions of the Utah
authorities which contain further
definitional requirements under Utah law.
Specifically that whether you're a part-year
resident is determined by the number of days
that you spend in Utah.
MR. STEINFIELD: Well --
MR. MONTGOMERY: So
MR. STEINFIELD: you have --
MR. MONTGOMERY: I had not
objected to marking this particular document
to aid in the examination, but I do object to
a misrepresentation with respect to its
significance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
100
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, we're not
going to misrepresent anything. Given what
Mr. Montgomery has said we will now offer the
full set of instructions which I had hoped to
avoid, but I'm glad to do. Mr. Montgomery,
here's a set.
MR. MONTGOMERY: All right.
MR. STEINFIELD: Here is a set.
What's now being offered is the entire
instructions for the Utah 1999 individual
income tax and a multi-page document --
MR. STEINFIELD: And give Mr.
Montgomery and Mr. Romney a copy of that.
THE WITNESS: I did get one, yeah.
THE COMMISSIONER: -- apparently
taken off the internet. The same which will
be marked as Exhibit 14 assuming that there's
no objection.
set of income tax instruction
for 1999 was marked as
Objector's Exhibit No. 14)
101
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Now Mr. Romney, you have the full set of
instructions in front of you as well as the single
page, right?
Yes.
Take a look, please, at the full set of
instructions and turn to page two. And do you see
a short paragraph called nonresident defined?
Yes, I do.
And now sir, please look at Exhibit 13 and satisfy
yourself that Exhibit 13 is simply a copy of the
definition of nonresident according to the Utah
tax authorities.
It is not. Nonresident defined on page two is
different than what you have on your Exhibit 13.
It's an entirely different paragraph and it says
that a nonresident is someone who's been there for
less than 183 days.
Excuse me, sir. We're talking part-year resident.
You said --
If I said nonresident I miss spoke and I
apologize.
The blow-up and the paragraph to which I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i n n is part-year resident.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Okay.
And --
They appear to be the same.
-- having now corrected myself do we agree that
Exhibit 13 is a copy of the instructions that
define a part-year resident?
Yes.
102
And we know from Exhibit 12 that you filed in Utah
as a part-year resident in 1999?
Correct.
And the definition says, quote, a part-year
resident is an individual who is in -- who is
domiciled in Utah for part of the year and is
domiciled outside Utah for part of the year. Have
I read that correctly?
Yes, I believe you have.
What it then goes on to say is that for the part
of the year that you are residing in Utah all of
your income is taxable in Utah. Doesn't it say
that?
Let me just read it. Yes.
So the longer you put on the tax return for
purposes of the part-time residency the more
~ - - = ~ riqht?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
103
In Utah.
In Utah. Now, you never read this definition when
you filed your tax return, apparently?
No.
Did you tell your tax advisors that you were not
domiciled in Utah for any part of 1999? Did you
tell them that?
I gave them the exact number of days by month that
I was bi-state.
Let me ask the question again. Did you tell your
tax advisors that you were not domiciled in Utah
at anytime in 1999?
15
16
Q. Did you or did you not?
MR. MONTGOMERY: How about a
17 foundation for this?
18 (By The Witness)
19
20
21
22
23
A.
I did not use those words. I don't know what
you're referring.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Withdrawn.
MR. STEINFIELD: I'm sorry?
THE COMMISSIONER: Counsel is asking
, ~ ~ ~ n but he withdrew his objection
104
1 in view of the answer.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
It's a simple question. Either you told them,
hey, I'm not domiciled in Utah
I never used the word domicile with my tax
advisors.
Well, we presume and you presume that your tax
advisors checked the applicable provisions of Utah
law before they gave you the tax return to sign,
don't we?
Yes.
Now, let me turn next, please, to your tax return
for the following year in Utah. This is the year
2000. When I say tax return I'm referring to the
first page only of the redacted document.
document they described being the front sheet
of the Utah individual income tax return form
for the year 2000 in the name of Willard M.
and Ann D. Romney which had been redacted.
If there's no objection that is received in
evidence and marked Exhibit 15 being offered
by the Objector.
fWhereupon the below-described
105
1 Utah tax form for 2000 was
3 No. 15}
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Exhibit 15, Mr. Romney, reflects that you filed an
individual income tax return in Utah in the year
2000, right?
Correct.
And on this return unlike the prior return you did
not check off the box part-year resident, did you?
Correct.
And that's because you were a resident of Utah for
all of the year 2000?
Correct.
And you knew or were advised that under Utah law a
full-time resident of Utah or indeed a person who
lived there for more than half the year was
obligated to file as aresident?
Correct.
And that's what you did, right?
Correct.
And as we will discuss, perhaps later in the day,
you filed for that year in Massachusetts as a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Correct.
Now you also filed Federal Income Tax Returns in
1999 and 2000, what address did you use on those
returns? Do you remember?
I don't recall.
Well, we're going to show them to you.
I presume where I was living.
106
MR. STEINFIELD: May these be marked
as exhibit sixteen, the '99 return and
seventeen, the 2000 return.
THE COMMISSIONER: We've only been
given the -- at least I've only been given
the one for 1999.
MR. STEINFIELD: Pardon me?
MS. KELLY-SULLIVAN: It's coming.
THE COMMISSIONER: I now have been
offered, and I assume there's no objection
thereto, what appears to be a redacted copy
of the front sheet of a 1040 form of Willard
and Ann D. Romney for the years of 1999 and
2000. And I will mark as Exhibit 16A the
year 1999 and as Exhibit 16B the year 2000.
And I assume there's no objection thereto.
No objection.
107
1
THE COMMISSIONER: These have been
2 redacted with respect to figures and amounts.
4 1999 redacted 1040 was marked
5 as Objector's Exhibit No. 16A}
7 2000 redacted 1040 was marked
8 as Objector's Exhibit No. 16B}
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Now, turning to another subject.
You've already testified that you do not own
the house in Belmont, right?
Yes.
Your wife owns it?
Yes.
We don
1
t need to show you any deeds
1
you know
that?
Yes.
All right. And you also know that the bills
1
the
tax bills for that property are sent to your wife,
right?
Yes. I would presume so. I
1
m sorry. I don't
know that
1 A.
2 Q.
3 A.
4 Q.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
but I presume so.
let's show Mr. Romney
I'll accept -- I accept your word for it.
108
Okay. Let's show the Commission, in any case, the
1999 real estate tax bill and then after that has
been marked we'll show them the 2002 tax bill.
THE COMMISSIONER: I am now being
offered a two page tax bill.
MR. STEINFIELD: I'm sorry.
THE COMMISSIONER: Are there two? I
actually I have a fiscal year 1999 real
estate tax bill together with a fiscal year
2002 real estate.
MR. STEINFIELD: Yes, those should
be marked separately, Your Honor.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. All right.
Of the town of Belmont with respect to the
171 Marsh Street property in that town which
was the Belmont property in question in this
litigation. And why don't I take the 1999 --
the state tax bill and call that Exhibit 17A
if there's no objection.
h - ~ hill for 171 Marsh Street
1
2
3
4
5
109
for 1999 was marked as
Objector's Exhibit No. 17A)
And as far as the year 2000 -- 2002 tax bill
that would be marked Exhibit 17 -- Why don't
I give it -- Yes
1
17B.
7 tax bill for 171 Marsh Street
9 Objector's Exhibit No. l7B)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Now Mr. Romney, do you have 17A in front of you,
the '99 tax bill --
I do.
-- directed to your wife, Ann D. Romney 171 Marsh
Street, Belmont, right?
Correct.
Do you have the 2002 bill in front of you?
I do.
Do you see that that bill actually is paid and
there
1
s a notation, paid 10-13-01?
I do see that, yes.
Now that bill isn't sent to Mrs. Romney at Marsh
Street, is it?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
It's sent to a box number in Wellesley Hills, is
that true?
Yes.
Whose box is that?
Becky Aimes our tax - our bill payer.
Your bill payer?
That's correct.
110
Well, it appears then that between one year and
another you decided or Mrs. Romney decided to have
the bill payer receive the real estate tax bill,
right?
Correct.
And notified the Belmont Tax Assessors not to send
it to the house send it to Becky Aimes in
Wellesley?
Correct.
And that's true of a lot of the bills that came in
while you were living in Utah, is it not?
Yes.
Now, Mrs. Romney also owns property in New
Hampshire, does she not?
Yes.
You may have mentioned that earlier?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
That property is at two different locations
1
is
it?
It
1
s actually a series of lots and I don
1
t know
the exact number, they're all contiguous.
111
Well one is seven -- 87 Clauflin Road and another
is 27 Greenleaf Drive, and she owns them both.
They're contiguous pieces of property.
With different addresses?
Correct.
Similarly the Clauflin Road Tax bill, historically
at least 1 was sent to Mrs. Romney at Marsh Street?
I'll take your word for it.
You don't have to do that. Could you show Mr.
Romney, please, the 1998 New Hampshire tax bill
for 87 Clauflin Road?
MR. MONTGOMERY: '99.
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, it's dated
12-1-98.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
THE COMMISSIONER: There's no
objection to this document?
THE COMMISSIONER: The same would b(
---'t....:'hit: 18 being a property tax
112
1 bill of the town of Wolfboro, New Hampshire
2 with respect to the year 1998 to December 1,
3 1998 in the name of Ann Romney.
5 tax bill for the Wolfboro
6 property was marked as
8 {By Mr. Steinfield}
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1.8
19
20
21
22
23
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
And just as you surmised, Mr. Romney, when you
said you'd take my word for it, this bill was sent
to your wife in 1998 before you went to Utah at
Marsh Street, right?
Correct.
Now after that in the year 2000, do you know where
the New Hampshire tax bill was sent?
I don't.
You'd assume, would you, that it was sent to Becky
Aimes like the other bill we saw?
Not necessarily, no.
All right. It might have been sent to Utah?
Right.
Because Mrs. Romney had joined you out in Utah at
some point, indeed, in 1999, is that true?
- ~ - ~ ~ m ~ the second half of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Q.
113
year.
Well, we'll show you next your 2000 Clauflin Road,
New Hampshire tax bill.
THE COMMISSIONER: This document is
also from the town of Wolfboro being a real
estate tax bill, apparently for the year
2000, and the amount due by December 14th of
that year. And this should be marked into
evidence as Exhibit 19 being offered by the
Objector and I assume without objection.
13 tax bill for 2000 for Wolfboro
15 Exhibit No. 19)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Q.
A.
Q.
So it's fair to say that somebody told the New
Hampshire tax assessors to send the tax bills out
to Utah, right?
Yes.
And sir, I
1
ll represent to you, without
necessarily having to mark the documents, that
that occurred in 2001 for your Clauflin Road
~ ,...., ~ , , fl in Road House, okay?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
This says 2000.
I'm talking about the next year, same thing.
The next year? You say you're talking about the
next -- I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.
The tax bill for 2001.
Oh, okay.
Went out to Utah. Okay?
Okay.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Well, let's
MR. STEINFIELD: I'm looking at it
Mr. Montgomery, you're welcome to join me.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Let's mark it.
114
MR. STEINFIELD: Fine. 2001 please,
Clauflin Road.
THE COMMISSIONER: I will mark the
Wolfboro bill, I assume, is for 2001, would
be marked Exhibit 19.
MR. STEINFIELD: J think this is
twenty, Your Honor.
MS. KELLY-SULLIVAN: Twenty.
THE COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry. Oh,
it is twenty, that's correct. That's why I
say this in a loud, clear voice because I'm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
115
tax bill for 2001, Wolfboro was
No. 20)
MR. STEINFIELD: Now, I have the tax
bills for Greenleaf Drive here reflecting
exactly the same, Mr. Montgomery. You are
welcome to look at them. If you like we can
mark those as well.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I'll look at those.
MR. STEINFIELD: Can we stipulate
that for 1999 the tax bill for Wolfboro was
sent to Utah and for 2001 to Utah?
MR. MONTGOMERY: Same pattern?
MR. STEINFIELD: Same pattern.
Except for --
THE COMMISSIONER: With respect to
the --
MR. STEINFIELD: The adjoining
property.
THE COMMISSIONER: The adjoining
property would still be in Wolfboro?
--- And you would
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
have a set of taxes that would correlate to
that?
116
MR. STEINFIELD: Yes, and if the
panel would like to have them we'd be glad to
have them marked.
THE COMMISSIONER: No, we don't need
anymore marked.
MR. STEINFIELD: I don't think you
do either.
THE COMMISSIONER: We seem to be
pretty well full on our supply of tax
documents. Are we getting on a new topic are
you going to just ...
MR. STEINFIELD: Yes. And I'm not
going to finish with this witness before 1:00
o'clock.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well,
we might think then of taking our 1:00
o'clock luncheon break?
MR. MONTGOMERY: That would be fine.
May I inquire as to the Commission's
intentions for the end of the day, do you
have a set time that you break?
- Well that depend1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
117
on how you gentlemen wear us down really I
suppose. Well why don't we -- Seeing that
the cafeteria not being open why don't we
take a one to two lunch period and come back.
And then we'll certainly go I think through
4:00 o'clock. I'd like to get a-- I have
not asked my fellow Commission how long they
can go. Can you go beyond four? Yes. We
may go beyond four but somebody can always
call out if we decide to go too late. I
would like to bring up one question. Mr.
Ginsburg and Mr. Tierney are still with us.
Would counsel confer with them. I want to
have them have opportunity to offer part of
their case. So could you confer with them
again during the lunch hour and see how --
what their submission is going to be, what's
the best way that they can be included in
this. I don't want to through the
Objectors I don't want to overlook their
interest in this matter. With that said why
don't we stand in recess till 2:00 o'clock.
(Off The Record)
- Before we go back
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
118
on to continue cross examination of Mr.
Romney by Mr. Steinfield, I asked a question
-- or I asked both Mr. Tierney and Mr.
Ginsburg if they would speak with counsel
with respect to how to fit in their needs.
Have you had a chance to discuss that with
Mr. Tierney, Mr. Ginsburg?
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, Mr. Ginsburg
is not here but Mr. Tierney and I have spoken
and as I understand it Mr. Tierney may have a
question or two at the conclusion of my
direct. And I certainly have no objection.
MR. TIERNEYr That's correct.
THE COMMISSIONER: Would that be
appropriate then?
MR. TIERNEY: Yes.
THE COMMISSIONER: We'll give him
the opportunity when you've completed your
direct examination and before cross
examination give Mr. Tierney a chance to ask
his question or questions.
MR. MONTGOMERY: And I spoke to Mr.
Ginsburg that he had to go back to his
,._ 'h.c::. was going to e-mail me a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
statement tonight which he requested that I
file on his behalf with the Commission
tomorrow.
119
THE COMMISSIONER: Is that agreeable
that we receive that in E-mail form?
you. Good.
MR. STEINFIELD: Mr. Chairman,
before we resume I have one matter I wish to
take up with the Commission.
MR. STEINFIELD: As I believe you
know, proceedings took place this morning
before the judge in Utah regarding the
deposition of Ms. Roche, the reporter from
the Deserate News. The judge in Utah
1
Judge
Nehring, N-E-H-R-I-N-G, has ordered that this
deposition take place confined to the narrow
areas that we requested. That deposition I
am informed will be held at 1:00 today Utah
time/ unless as the Deserate News has
requested, Ms. Roche submits an affidavit in
~ - ~ ~ ~ e d . I have informed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

23
120
counsel in Utah that I would take that up
with the Commission to see if it would be
inclined to accept an affidavit and of course
at the same time with Mr. Montgomery to see
whether he would assent to that procedure.
Now Judge Nehring in his order in Utah
specifically recognizes the important
constitutional issues that are before this
Commission and that is why he issued the
order that he did issue. So, I need to raise
with you just which way that procedure shall
go forward and then we will contact counsel
in Utah in order to determine the manner in
which the --
THE COMMISSIONER: It is --
MR. STE!NFIELD: -- sworn statement
will be put before you.
THE COMMISSIONER: Is it an option
that the deposition would be with cross
examination.
MR. STEINFIELD: Well --
THE COMMISSIONER: The affidavit
would not be with cross examination.
Well, I think
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
121
that's right. And I mean --
THE COMMISSIONER: And who -- whose
option is it now, is it the deponent?
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, the deponent
through her counsel has requested and Judge
Nehring has suggested as well, that this can
be readily done by affidavit. However, he
also said that if for any reason an affidavit
were not acceptable here he was directing her
to proceed to deposition. So, that's where
we are.
THE COMMISSIONER: Because normally
this Commission does not accept affidavits on
-- being offered for the truth of the matter
contained, the matters in contest. And we do
this traditionally requiring vbters to come
in and to I -- even to identify their
signature to say this is not been my
signature. We never allow that on
affidavits. Although recognizing the value
of it it still is preferred to -- to have a
deposition which does permit a cross
examination. However, if Mr. Montgomery is
- - ~ t-h the affidavit in this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
particular case, if the parties agree, I
think the Commission might be willing to
proceed. How do feel with that?
122
MR. MONTGOMERY: It is difficult to
answer that question never having spoken to
Ms. Roche and not having seen the affidavit.
Now, if the. affidavit is sufficient for our
purposes here then I'm sure we would not want
to put anybody through the trouble of a
deposition. That having been said, if the
content of the affidavit is one that would
lend itself to further examination then of
course we will wish to have that opportunity.
So, it is a difficult question to answer.
THE COMMISSIONER: I'm not giving
you a very decide -- I think the board would
prefer to have a deposition taken with right
of cross examination.
MR. STEINFIELD: We'll be glad to do
that.
THE COMMISSIONER: And if you could
MR. STEINFIELD: We will inform
J ~ ~ nreference of the boarc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
123
to do a deposition. Judge Nehring, by the
way, indicated that he wanted to defer
entirely to this Commission and would direct
that the deposition be sent here essentially
sealed unto such time as it is presented to
you. And so that is what we will do.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well,
that would be excellent. And in your
communication with the court would you
express the thanks of this Commission to
Judge Nehring and his court for the
willingness to participate in a matter in
which he
MR. STEINFIELD: I will ask Ms.
D'ambrosio to do so and she is going to call
Utah Counsel.
MR. STEINFIELD: It will go forward
at 3:00 our time and hopefully we'll be able
to present this to you tomorrow morning.
you very much. Are there any other
preliminary matters?
124
1 (By Mr. Stein)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Mr. Romney, you testified about bank accounts this
morning, do you recall that?
Yes.
I think what
No, I ...
Excuse me. I think Mr. Montgomery talked
about --
Correct.
-- bank accounts.
Correct.
It is perfectly clear that you had bank accounts
here in Massachusetts before you went out to Utah
and you kept them, right?
Yes.
And you opened accounts out there, right?
Opened out an account there.
Well, was that the First Security Bank?
It was First Security Bank and then First Security
Bank was acquired by Wells Fargo Bank and it
automatically became a Wells Fargo Bank account.
And -- You and Mr. Romney had a joint account
with that bank, right?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
And gave them your Utah address, right?
Yes.
125
Now, you kept your Fleet checking account, is that
true?
Yes.
And on your checks you had, back when you were
here in Massachusetts, your Massachusetts address
below your name, right?
Yes.
Now, what is the point of putting the address on
your checks? Do you have a reason for doing that?
I presume so that a party has difficulty cashing a
check or it's returned for insufficient funds they
know who to contact and how to contact you.
If a check is returned for insufficient funds.
Has that happened to you?
Yes.
I guess it's probably happened to all of us.
I'm afraid so.
Well, did you put your Utah address on your Fleet
Bank checks?
When we ran out of checks we would put the current
address for purposes of printing new checks. I
- - ~ ...... .,. not -- we did not do
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
126
that promptly necessarily, we sort of used the
checks until we run out of them and then we'd get
the new address and get them printed on the new
checks.
You took care of that yourself did you?
No, I believe my wife took care of that.
But you and she discussed it at the time?
I don't believe we discussed it. She just took
care of it.
And you were aware if it?
I was aware that the checks had the Utah address
on them, yes.
MR. STEINFIELD: Now, let me just
mark a sample which is number eighty-five.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. You
are offering a Fleet Bank check. The sample
has been redacted, but it does show the name
of the owner as Willard Mitt Romney and Ann D
Romney 3853 Rising Star Lane in Park City
Utah. And if my memory is correct this will
take us to exhibit twenty-one. There is no
objection and it is being offered by the
Objector. Exhibit 21.
--.. .,.,rm the above-described
127
1 check was marked as Exhibit No.
2 21)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Now, you also maintained a relationship with the
so called Private Client
1
S Group of Fleet, right?
That,s correct.
And that refers, does it, to an investment account
of some sort?
No, I believe the Private Client's Group contains
all of our Fleet Bank accounts. So, it includes
our savings account, our checking account, and any
other accounts we might have. So, all of the
accounts are -- are under an umbrella called
the-- Excuse me. The Fleet Private Client's
Group I believe.
MR. STEINFIELD: And let me just
mark as the next exhibit your 1999 sample
statement, document number 119. 119.
November 30, 1999. Well, we seem to have a
glitch in the system, but I,ll proceed and
we'll find the document that a
~ ~ (By Mr. Steinfield)
~ -amnle of a statement on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
128
that Fleet Private Client Group account, is that
right?
Yes.
And the one I've show you is November 1999,
correct?
Correct.
Showing as your address Park City Utah?
Correct.
MR. STEINFIELD: And may that be
marked as the next exhibit?
THE COMMISSIONER: This is on the
Fleet Private Client Group account redacted
form and gives the name of Willard Mitt
Romney, Ann D Romney and the address of
Rising Star Lane in Park City Utah. This
would be Exhibit 22 if there is no objection
thereto.
THE COMMISSIONER: Being offered by
the Objector.
1999 sample statement document
was marked as Objector's
- ~ - ' " ' . ; hit No . 2 2 )
129
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
?.1
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Now Mr. Romney, you may recall hearing Mr.
Montgomery make reference to a contribution to
charity during his opening?
Yes.
And you do give money to charities, do you not?
I do.
And we're going to show you two pages having to do
with the United Way.
THE COMMISSIONER; Are these
documents relate -- to the United Way ot
Great Salt Lake area. One is the Alexis De
Tocqueville Society, 1999 Campaign Investment
of Confirmation and notification of campaign
contributions of 1999 to the Romney's
apparently at the Rising Star Lane, Park
City, Utah address. And a similar document
for the year 2000 with -- indicating the
receipt of the campaign contribution of that
year. Again the preferred home address is
3853 Rising Star Lane, Park City, Utah. And
what I'm going to do is to mark both of these
pages with one exhibit -- I better put
- ~ ~ F ~ r the 1990 campaign pledg
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
confirmation. And Exhibit 23B for the 2000
campaign investment pledge. And again
they
1
re offered by the Objector. And I
understand thereto be no objection.
130
{Whereupon the below-described
United Way pledge for 1999 was
marked as Exhibit No. 23A}
{Whereupon the below-described
United Way pledge for 2000 was
11 marked as Exhibit No. 23B}
12 {By Mr. Steinfield
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Now1 these documents as you will see, Mr. Romney,
from the lower right corner were produced by your
counsel in this case. Do you see those numbers?
Yes.
Do I understand correctly that these documents
reflect your contributions to the United Way in
the years 1999 and 2000?
I believe S0
1
yes.
Now1 you know that the United Way exists here in
Massachusetts, do you not?
Yes.
- ~ +-o.r1 Way exists in Utah
1
do yc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
131
not?
Yes.
You chose to give to the United Way in Utah
1
isn't
that right?
Yes.
And not in Massachusetts{ isn
1
t that right?
No.
Well, your counsel has produced only this. If you
have the Massachusetts{ I would request that those
be produced.
Well 1 it says right here --
Excuse me, sir. I'm referring to the top of the
page.
I
1
m referring to the middle of the page.
I'm sorry. I wasn
1
t clear. You designated money
to be -- in Massachusetts -- in Massachusetts if
that's what you
1
re referring to?
Yes. I --
All right.
I designated the money that I gave in Utah to go
to Massachusetts Bay United Way. So the money
went to -- went to Massachusetts.
Absolutely correct, sir. And in the following
WAll. various places.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
?1
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
132
Massachusetts, Utah, the boy scouts, and so forth.
Right.
I was referring only to the top of the page and I
wasn't clear on that point. You donated to the
Utah United Way, right?
Yes.
All right. And you indicated to the Utah United
Way that your name should appear in all United Way
publications in a particular manner, did you not?
Take a look at line one.
Yes. Okay.
You didn't tell them that you wanted the United
Way to put down Massachusetts as your address, did
you?
No.
You put Salt Lake, did you not?
I --
SLOC in \99. Salt Lake Organizing Committee in
2000?
Yes.
And you then gave a preferred address and checked
home and gave your Utah address?
Yes.
~ - - ~ ..... hack to the subject of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
133
Belmont for just a minute.
MR. STEINFIELD: Excuse me a moment.
MR. STEINFIELD: Your Honor, I'm
going to next offer a press release if I may.
What's being offered as a one page press
release apparently entitling, Regards to Mitt
Romney's residency in Massachusetts dated 6-
6-02, from the Romney Healey 2002 campaign
office, assume. And relating to a items
involving Mr. Romney's residency. If there
13 are no objections to that document I'll mark
14 it as Exhibit 24 being offered by the
15 Objector.
17 press release dated 6-6-02 was
19 No. 24}
21
22
Q.
A.
Now, Exhibit 24 has the name Eric Fehnstrom at thE
top, do you see that?
Mm-mm.
- onnkesperson, is he, for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
your campaign?
Correct.
134
And he speaks as your public representative, does
he?
Yes.
He'& the one who said that you had filed your
Massachusetts taxes as a Massachusetts resident
and then that had to be corrected, is that right?
No.
Well, we'll get back to that.
Do you recognize that document as a document
released by Mr. Fehnstrom with regard to your
voting, am I right?
I have not seen this until now, but that's what it
appears to be, yes.
Well, you heard Mr. Montgomery say in his opening
that you continued to vote and exercise that
singular franchise. Do you remember those words?
Yes.
Now, if we look at what Mr. Fehnstrom put togethe!
here you'll agree with me that the last six
elections were all held in '98 or before, right?
Yes.
~ - .. t- t.o Utah for those
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
elections.
That's correct.
135
And the top two are April and June of 2002, right?
Correct.
Now, that leaves '99, 2000 and 2001.
I don't see the 2001, but it does -- I believe
'99 and 2000 -- and 2000.
Well, you are quite right. 2001 isn't on this
piece of paper, but 2001 came after 2000.
Yes. Certainly.
And you were in Utah and didn't vote in
Massachusetts.
Correct.
Do you know how many elections were held here in
2001?
I don't.
THE COMMISSIONER: You mean state or
local?
MR. STEINFIELD: Local. Excuse me.
21
22
Q.
A.
Q.
Local.
I don't.
Do you know whether you could have voted by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
136
I
1
m sure I could.
And is the same true in the year 2000? Do you
know whether you voted in all the local elections?
I don
1
t.
What about the state primary in the year 2000, do
you know if you voted in that?
No.
You don
1
t know?
Well, I -- I don't see it in this form and I
presume this form was correctly compiled --
THE COMMISSIONER: What are you
talking about, the presidential primary or
three seven --
MR. STEINFIELD; No. The state
primary. Different primary.
MR. MONTGOMERY: What year?
MR. STEINFIELD: 2000.
18 (By The Witness)
19 A. I -- I don't.
20
21
22
23
MR. STEINFIELD: Let me clarify
this, Your Honor, by reference to some voting
records. I'm going to hand the panel the
voting -- and Mr. Romney and would suggest
I believe a total of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
137
seven records from the town of Belmont. And
if I can ask -- First
1
could we mark these
as a single exhibit?
THE COMMISSIONER: I'm trying to
figure out just what they are. Could you
I mean 1 generically --
MR. STEINFIELD: Certified -- Let
me --
THE COMMISSIONER: do you want to
identify what you
1
ve given us?
MR. STEINFIELD: Yes. What I've
given you is a certified copy from the clerks
office of the voting record in each of the
elections held on the dates shown at the top.
For example 1 if you see the top document,
Local election 5-22-01.
THE COMMISSIONER: ALl right.
MR. STEINFIELD: Where people vote
you see the X. Where you see no indication
it means they didn't vote.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. 80
1
in the first one then, local special election
on 5-22-2001, it appears that W. Mitt Romney
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
?1
MR. STEINFIELD: Exactly.
THE COMMISSIONER: On local On
138
the second page you have a local election on
4-02-2001. It indicates that Mr. Romney did
not vote.
MR. STEINFIELD: Correct.
THE COMMISSIONER: On the state
election on 11-07-2000, that would be the
presidential election of two years ago --
statewide election, it appears that Mr.
Romney did vote.
MR. STEINFIELD: Yes, that's the
year 2000, Your Honor.
THE COMMISSIONER: And on the state
primary on 9-19-2001 the year, the September
primary so called it appears that Mr. Romney
did not vote. On the local election on 4-03-
2000 it appeared Mr. Romney did not vote. On
the presidential primary on 3-7-2000 it
appears that Mr. Romney did vote as a
republican. And the local election on 7-20-
1999 it appears that Mr. Romney did not vote.
And those are the seven pages that you've
'- T' 1 1 mark those
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
collectively as Exhibit 25 if there is no
objection?
139
MR. MONTGOMERY: There is no
objection. We agree that these are accurate
copies of the town of Belmont voting records.
you.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Perhaps we can move
9 on.
11 town of Belmont voting records
12 were marked as Objector's
13 Exhibit No. 25)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
So, apart' from voting in the presidential primary
and the presidential election, Mr. Romney, both in
2000, you didn't vote at all in 2000 or 2001 in
Massachusetts, is that true?
These records -- These records show all the votes
in 2000 and 2001 I mean, all of the elections?
To the best of my knowledge they do.
Assuming that's the case then that
1
S correct.
Now, let me turn next, Mr. Romney, to a different
. ....... ,, vour redacted
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
nineteen -- 1999 Massachusetts tax return. This
is document number 437.
THE COMMISSIONER: What is being
offered is a copy of the -- counsel, of the
form one Massachusetts resident income tax
return. My copy-- I think it's for the
year 1999, but the nines are cropped in the
right edge of the page.
MR. STEINFIELD: I think we can
agree this is 1999.
140
THE All right. And
if there is no objection as to the redacted
copy -- if there is no objection that will be
received in evidence and marked Exhibit 26.
17 Form one Massachusetts resident
18 income tax return was marked as
21
22
23
Q.
A.
Q.
Mr. Romney, do you recognize this document?
Yes.
Is this a tax return that you filed with the
-- ...... 'h,ll":(etts for the tax year of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
1999?
It appears to be so, yes.
And you filed this particular return in April of
2002, isn't that right? You take your time.
141
Well, I don't see any date here that would tell me
when -- when this was filed. So --
Well, let me help you out.
Is this -- Is this the amended
the amended return?
Oh, this is
Well, you take a look. It says resident income
tax return. Do you know when you filed a resident
income tax return for the tax year 1999?
In 2000 -- Excuse me. 2002, right.
And when in 2002?
In April of 2002. I believe March or April of
2002.
MR. STEINFIELD: And 2000 please.
I'm next going to show you a tax return
apparently for the tax year 2000. And I ask
that it be marked.
THE COMMISSIONER: A similar
redacted document for the year 2000 being a
Massachusetts tax return page one, the year
J- ovidence if there is no
1
142
objection. And the same is marked Exhibit 27
2 being offered by the Objector.
4 Massachusetts tax return for
5 2000 was marked as Objector's
6 Exhibit No. 27)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Now, this tax return is for 2000, Mr. Romney.
When did you file it?
In April, I believe, in 2002.
In both cases, some weeks after deciding to run
for Governor and announcing that decision?
Correct.
Now, these forms have at the bottom, a stamp as
amended. Do you see that?
Mm-mm.
You have to say yes or no.
Yes.
In fact 1 you didn
1
t amend the form you used
before, you filed a different form, is that
correct?
Yes.
Well 1 let's go back and see what you filed in the
- ~ ~ n nlease with the form for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
A.
Q.
143
1999. Now sir, I'm showing you a blank form
called Massachusetts nonresident slash part-year
resident tax return 1999. Do you see that?
Yes.
And what we have on the easel over here -
THE COMMISSIONER: Excuse me. It's
being offered. If there is no objection it
would be received as Exhibit 28. Being a
three page document, being a form of the
Massachusetts nonresidents slash part-year
residents tax return. Thank you.
Honor.
16 Massachusetts nonresidents/
17 part-year residents tax return
18 was marked as Exhibit No. 28}
20
21
22
23
Q.
A.
And what you see behind you on the tripod is a
blow-up of the first and third pages of that
return. Do you see that?
Mm-mm. Yes.
~ ~ ~ c return in the first
1
2
instance back in '99 --
MR. MONTGOMERY: I object.
144
3 (By Mr. Stein)
4 Q. 2000 --
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
MR. MONTGOMERY: This is not the
return that he filed nor is this the precise
form of the return.
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, then I
will --
MR. MONTGOMERY: There is a
difference.--
MR. STEINFIELD: -- rephrase the
question.
MR. MONTGOMERY: -- between a
computer generated form and those that are
available like this, printed forms.
MR. STEINFIELD: I see.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Except the
representation that what we had marked as
Exhibit 28 is a copy of what appears to be
one version of the printed form.
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, that's
interesting, Mr. Montgomery. Apparently our
Why don't we
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
145
simplify this by taking out the so called
electronic form and I believe we have a blow-
up of that as well.
THE COMMISSIONER: What is now being
offered is a similar form. Apparently for
the same type of taxpayer, but this is done
electronically, is that right Mr. Steinfield,
instead of a
MR. STEINFIELD: Apparently. I'm
not --
THE COMMISSIONER: -- a hard copy
there of.
MR. STEINFIELD: -- entirely sure.
It's-- It's a tax--
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, you've got
to give it some guidance. I have to mark
this as what it is.
MR. STEINFIELD: Yes, this is the
redacted 1999 tax return filed in the 2000 by
Mr. Romney. A part-year resident tax return.
And it has been provided to us in redacted
form pages 436 and 475.
THE COMMISSIONER: And this was an
- - ~ is that correct?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
MR. MONTGOMERY: I missed the
question, Your Honor.
THE COMMISSIONER: I'm trying to
figure out is what will become exhibit
twenty-nine. May I describe it as an
electronic filing?
146
MR. MONTGOMERY: That -- That would
be fine.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. And
this is an electronic file redacted copy --
THE WITNESS: May I make a
suggestion? I'm not sure this is filed
electronically or is
MR. STEINFIELD: I'm not either.
I'm going to ask you about that.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I'm not either.
My --
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, then we're
not going to agree.
MR. MONTGOMERY: My objection is to
the reference to forms.
THE WITNESS: This This
And it's a -- I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
147
believe it is a computer generated form
generated by Price Waterhouse Coopers which I
then sign and sent in.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I referred to a
computer generated form not to electronic
filing. Your Honor, could I have just a
moment to confer. I just got some
information regarding what occurred this
morning in the court of .Utah before Judge
Nehring. And I'd like to read this because
it may have some bearing on the discussion --
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Why
don't we take a very short break. I think
the Commission would just withdraw to the
room behind here. Also kind of straighten
out what we're doing here on these forms
before you totally confuse me.
THE COMMISSIONER: Take a short
recess.
(Off The Record)
MR. MONTGOMERY: With respect to the
Deposition of Ms. Roche that we discussed at
'- ~ F r ~ r n o o n session. Our
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
148
information is that Judge Nehring, while he
permitted the deposition to go forward
ordered that no cross examination be
permitted. Assuming that that is the case,
as that we understand that it is, then it
seems to us a bit of a useless exercise for a
deposition to proceed and we would be glad to
accept an affidavit. Now, I know the
Commission of course would prefer a
deposition but I assumed from your comments,
Your Honor, a deposition as to which there
was some cross examination. If that's not
going to occur, per Judge Nehring, then we
might as well just proceed
THE COMMISSIONER: No. I --
MR. MONTGOMERY: -- with the
affidavit.
THE COMMISSIONER: -- I was --
misunderstood.
THE COMMISSIONER: If that's the
way, would an affidavit be suitable to the
Commission? He was convinced, I'm sure, by
~ - ~ hAfore him that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
he was only going to allow direct
examination. That certainly seem that an
affidavit would probably summarize that
testimony and would be suitable to the
Commission --
149
MR. MONTGOMERY: And the Commission
and all of us will take it for whatever it
was worth understanding that it was not
subject to cross examination.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Is that
agreeable?
MR. STEINFIELD: I defer to your
judgement.
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, put it this
way, I would obviously defer to Judge Nehring
who is going to make the decision based on
the on what he has before him. But we
would prefer to have cross examination
available, but if it's not we would then
be -- be content to take it in the form an
affidavit.
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, let me
suggest the following procedure. Why don't
r r + - . = ~ h of just what you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
150
said. And they all know each other out
there. It may well be that in light of what
you've just said Judge Nehring would
reconsider. In which case we'll tell them to
go ahead and have a deposition, otherwise you
would accept an affidavit.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. And that
would be agreeable to the board.
MR. STEINFIELP: Sir --
MR. STEINFIELP: I did not know.
This is the first I've heard about this cross
examination point is when Mr. Montgomery
mentioned it. We'll get it cleared up and
bring something in tomorrow.
you. Then as far as the day in which we get
it we still have an open -- several days
before we have to receive it. I mean,
even --
THE COMMISSIONER: I want to proceed
with the taking of all the testimony here,
- ;r that has not
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
arrived from the far West then we'll --
MR. MONTGOMERY: I suspect it will
arrive shortly since the deposition is
scheduled to proceed in just a few minutes.
THE COMMISSIONER: Oh.
151
MR. MONTGOMERY: So, if we are going
to do something one of us needs to
communicate with people in Utah.
MR. STEINFIELD: It is being done
right now.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right, good.
12 Thank you.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q. Now Mr. Romney, if you just look behind you for a
moment. On the left hand side --
THE COMMISSIONER: Excuse me. Just
be -- One final matter. When we took our
short recess the final form we were talking
about the computer generated form which would
become exhibit twenty-nine being a two page
redacted form. During the first page to have
a redacting number MR00436 and the second
page 00475. Indicating what I assume the
first and last pages of that particular
1
2
3
4
5
6
return of the Romney's for the year 1999 on
the Mass nonresident part-year resident tax
form.
Honor.
THE COMMISSIONER: Exhibit 29.
152
8 redacted 1999 tax form was
10 No. 29)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
If you look at the blow-up on the left hand side.
That appears to be the kind of tax return you get
in the mail. Do you see that?
I see this blow-up on the left hand side, yes.
You used to get your tax returns in the mail at
some point in your life, didn't you?
Yes.
And on the right hand side is apparently a
computer generated page similar to the page on the
left hand tripod, Exhibit 28, right?
I'll take your word for it, yes.
Well the both -- Well, you don't have to do that.
They both have twelve numbered lines. Do you see
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
A.
Q.
153
that?
I haven't read them. I'm happy to take your word
for it.
The only reason I bring it up, sir, is whether Mr.
Montgomery had suggested they were different
forms. Perhaps you could take a look and tell us
whether they seem to be substantially the same.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Please.
MR. STEINFIELD: Thank you.
MR. MONTGOMERY: If Mr. Steinfield
really desires Mr. Romney to review both of
these versions of the standard tax form in
Massachusetts for 1999 then I think we've
actually descended to a level of silliness
that is beyond --
MR. STEINFIELD: I'll accept Mr.
Montgomery's comment and move right on.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. I'd
19 appreciate it.
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
If you take a look next -- Well, staying just on
the right hand side, number 29, that's the one you
actually got to sign, correct?
This one here, yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
154
Yes. And you filed, did you not, as a part-year
resident? Take a look at line two. You have the
document there, sir.
Line two. Correct.
And indicated that you lived a 181 days in
Massachusetts. You'll recall you had a 184 on
your Utah return.
Mm-mm.
And you put a 181 days on this return, right?
Mm-mm.
It's better if you say yes or no.
Yes.
Now, did you understand that when you signed your
return here in Massachusetts for 1999 that you
were filing in the capacity of a part-year
resident?
Yes.
Now, if you'll take a look at the second page of
the actual return. On the other side please.
This is the second page of Exhibit 29. Do you see
that?
Yes.
That's the page that you sign, correct?
Right.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Now, we don't have a copy of your signed return,
do we?
No.
But if you look at the document you will see the
155
words, sign here under pains
perjury. Do you see that?
under penalties of
Yes.
And right above those words the taxpayer is
suppose to put down location of legal residence
parenthesis domicile. Do you see that?
Yes.
And then it calls for an address, and the city and
the state, right?
Yes.
Now, you don't remember whether you did or did not
fill in that line of domicile, do you?
I do remember.
All right. What did you put on the line?
Nothing.
You didn't put down Massachusetts.
I didn't put anything down. I signed the form,
dated it and sent it.
So what you're telling us is that essentially you
didn't complete the form?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
156
Correct.
Well, did you know what it meant to be a part-year
resident for tax purposes?
I believed I knew what it meant to be a part-year
resident for tax purposes, yes.
Well, did you look at the instruction sheet that
the Department of Revenue sends out to taxpayes?
No.
Well, after you filed that return, as I understand
it, you filed an amended part-year return for that
year. Made some adjustments.
Yes.
Recall doing that?
I recall there was an amended return, yes.
MR. STEINFIELD: And we are going to
offer that as the next exhibit. This should
be MR435.
THE COMMISSIONER: This is the
amended return for 1999 I believe. And this
would be the first page of that amended form.
This would appear to be Exhibit 30 being
offered by the Objector. Shall be received
without objection.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
157
amended tax return for 1999 was
No. 3 0)
MR. STEINFIELD: May I have just a
moment.
MR. STEINFIELD: Your Honor, to
interrupt if I may for a moment. I think we
have some clarification from Utah. And I
know everyone is anxious to hear what it is.
MR. MONTGOMERY: May I stand?
MR. STEINFIELD: I wish you would.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I want to hear
this. What -- What do you have.
MR. STEINFIELD: The Judge will
allow cross examination provided that it is
within the scope of direct examination.
Deposition will be sent here under seal
submission to the Commission.
THE COMMISSIONER: I'm very --very
grateful to the amendment. Would you pass on
1
2
3
my thanks to the worthy justice in Utah.
MR. STEINFIELD: We will do so.
158
4 (By Mr. Stein)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Now, Exhibit 30 appears to be an amended return.
We only have page one. There was a page -- a
signature page for that return, was there not?
Yes.
And that signature page, is fair to say, looked
exactly like the signature page that we've been
looking at on the originally return.
I would believe it would be substantially the
same, yes.
And when you filed that amended return for '99 you
said once again part-year resident.
Right.
And you signed it again, under the penalties of
perjury?
Correct.
And now this time did you put down the address of
your legal residence domicile?
No.
Are you relying on your memory or have you seen
something to refresh your memory?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
I'm relying on my memory.
So, you didn't put down that Massachusetts was
your legal domicile, did you?
No.
Now, I'm a little unclear about one thing, Mr.
Romney. Did you file yet another amended part-
year return for 1999?
MR. STEINFIELD: And the reason I
159
9 ask, Mr. Montgomery is that I have received
10 another page from you. Your document number
11 486 that appears to be different from Exhibit
12 3 0.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q. Mr. Romney, your counsel tells me that you only
amended the part-time return once and I accept
that. So, we can move ahead. And we will move
ahead to take a look at the instructions.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. I'm
in receipt of two documents. One is a single
page apparently take -- single page which is
taken the Massachusetts nonresident or part-
time resident income tax orm instructions
and the other -- for 1999 Massachusetts
Commonwealth instructions. And the other is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
160
a multi page document giving -- which I
assume to be the total instructional package
that is sent to taxpayers of this type. And
I would mark the single page, if there is no
objection, as exhibit thirty-one A. And the
instruction booklet -- or a copy of the
booklet as Exhibit thirty-one B. Those are
received without objection I understand
and --
MR. MONTGOMERY: That's correct.
THE COMMISSIONER: -- and they are
12 offered by the Objector.
14 instructions for nonresident
15 part-time resident tax form was
16 marked as Exhibit No. 31A)
18 instruction booklet was marked
19 as Objector's Exhibit No. 31B)
21
22
23
24
Q. And Mr. Romney, Exhibit 31A is right by your right
arm. That's right. And you see that it tells you
something about the term part-year resident. Do
you see that?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
161
Yes.
You are a part-year resident if during the taxable
year you moved to Massachusetts. That doesn't
apply, does it?
Nope.
And then going down to the third line. Or you
terminated your status as a Massachusetts resident
to establish a resident out of state? So that's
what you did, right?
Correct.
You terminated your residence to establish a
residence in Utah, is that true?
I wouldn't say I terminated my residence. Based
upon my understanding of the law I maintained --
I should have indicated that I resided both here
and in Utah. An outcome I would not have
suspected at the time.
And apparently neither did Price Water House
Coopers because they were the advisors, is that
your testimony?
That's correct.
And in fact, if you take a look up on the very
same page. You find out that if you are domiciled
in Massachusetts you are required to file as a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
resident.
Correct.
Do you see that?
Correct.
162
Do you suppose Price Water House Coopers saw that
when they gave you the other return to file?
No.
They just skipped that, huh?
You said did they -- did they see that at the time
they gave me the return. And the answer to be no.
But wouldn't you expect your tax advisors to give
you the correct advice on what tax status you
should be filing?
I certainly would, yes.
Did they?
No.
Of course they still are your tax advisors, aren't
they?
It's also why we amended the return.
Sir, they're still your tax advisors?
Yes, they are.
It is also why you admitted the return after
announcing you were running for Governor, right?
And after learning I had made a mistake.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Q. Now, let's turn to the tax return for the year
2000. Document number 438.
163
THE COMMISSIONER: I have what
appears to be a redacted form of the first
page of the Romney's in Massachusetts income
tax for the year 2000. And this would be
marked in evidence as Exhibit 32 if there is
no objection.
MR. STEINFIELD: And --
THE COMMISSIONER: Offered by the
12 Objector.
14 redacted tax form for 2000 was
16 No. 32A)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q. Next if we can I would like to see the non-
computer document. That is the kind that comes in
the mail. Nonresident return for the year 2000.
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, the reason is
this, Your Honor. I have no page two for the
document we've just seen. It has not been
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
164
provided with the signature or without a
signature, in any other way. So what I would
like to show you is the Massachusetts form of
that page. And you can decide for yourself.
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, why don't
we have it? Do we know why we don't have a
page two?
MR. STEINFIELD: Page two and page
three. It is actually page three that has
the signature.
MR. MONTGOMERY: It's page three
that's the signature page and I would have
thought that you had a copy.
MR. STEINFIELD: Never been
provided.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Well, it would have
been helpful if you let me know.
MR. STEINFIELD: Am I wrong? You
have it? I may be mistaken.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I'm informed that
we provided that --
MR. STEINFIELD: I got it this
morning.
MR. MONTGOMERY: -- this morning.
1
2
3
165
MR. STEINFIELD: No wonder. I put
the documents -- I apologize. You know, I
put these together last night. They did hand
4 it to me this morning and I have one copy.
5 Let me show it to the witness.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
This is page two of your 2000 nonresident return.
Yes.
Right?
Mm-mm.
As originally filed, right?
Mm-mm.
This is the one that you filed in the year 2001?
Mm-mm.
THE COMMISSIONER: Is that page two
or page three?
MR. STEINFIELD: I'm sorry.
MR. MONTGOMERY: It's page three.
MR. STEINFIELD: It apparently is
page three. I apologize.
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr. Steinfield,
why don't I mark that now.
MR. STEINFIELD: Good.
THE COMMISSIONER: And then I'll
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
166
return it to you and ask you to be kind
enough to make copies for the other parties
and the Commission. And that's-- What I'm
going to do is on the last exhibit which is
Exhibit 32 I'm going to remark that as
Exhibit 32A and the document that we are now
dealing with which is page three of the
original return of the Romney's in
Massachusetts. In other words, the page
three is going to become 32B. So 32A and 32B
are going to be the same document just pages
one and three.
MR. MONTGOMERY: We do have just a
couple of extra copies, but not enough for --
THE COMMISSIONER: That's all right.
Why don't I just give this back and that
maybe you could bring it to us tomorrow
morning or do you want me to keep the
original.
MR. STEINFIELD: Why don't you keep
the original. Mr. Montgomery has just handed
me some copies which we will bring back to
you for everybody.
MS. TASSINARI: If they have an
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
167
extra copy I can have someone make copies.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. If you have
an extra copy we'll make the copies for you
as Ms. Tassinari suggests. There should be
one more copy of that.
MR. STEINFIELD: Yes, Your Honor. I
just want to make sure I give you the right
thing.
MR. MONTGOMERY: It could be
confusing reading those forms, Joe.
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, it can be
difficult when you get them while you -- at
the moment you begin the hearing.
MR. EBB: When you ask for them the
day before.
THE COMMISSIONER: Gentlemen we are
on a rush time schedule. This whole process
is on a time frame so don't start fretting
about our wows in that regard.
MS. KELLEY-SULLIVAN: See that she
gets it.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Fine.
If you wish to use this in the course of your
cross examination --
1
168
MR. STEINFIELD: Oh, thank you, Your
2 Honor.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Now, Mr. Romney, Exhibit 32B is the second page of
your nonresident return that you originally filed
for the year 2000, okay?
Yup.
And you signed it.
Yup.
And as in the case of the 1999 return it calls for
you to state, quote, "location of legal residence
domicile, address, city and state."
Yes, it does.
And did you fill that in?
I did not.
And you haven't refreshed your memory so you're
just remembering that you didn't put that on the
tax return two years ago?
That's correct.
And you're remembering that when you were asked to
indicate your domicile on a public filing with the
state of Utah you did not put down Massachusetts,
correct?
I'm sorry, I'm ...
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Q.
A.
Q.
169
I'll be happy to rephrase it.
You're remembering today that when you were
asked to tell the state of Utah your domicile in a
tax filing you didn't put down Massachusetts, did
you?
Where was I asked to do that? I'm sorry. Was
there a place in the form to indicate my domicile
in Utah you say?
Am I mistaken?
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
You're doing better than I.
There is a place to indicate your domicile.
Correct.
On 32B.
On the Massachusetts form, right.
You're absolutely right.
And I did not -- And I did not -- I did not put
any information in that area, correct.
You didn't tell the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
two years ago in response to that part of the tax
form the you were domiciled there.
Correct.
You just took a pass. You didn't put down
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
anything. Well, let me go on. If I could just
THE COMMISSIONER: I think that's
our original if you're through with that.
170
MR. STEINFIELD: Oh. Could we take
a look at the year 2000 instruction.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. They
are giving us another set of the
Massachusetts nonresident part-year resident
income tax form together with a one page
expert -- excerpt for the year 2000. Similar
to what you offered and which became Exhibit
31A and B. So, we'll receive those on the
same basis if there is no objection. To wit
the one page excerpt -
two?
Is it still page
MS. KELLEY-SULLIVAN: No, no sir.
I'm looking for it.
THE COMMISSIONER: The one p
excerpt will be marked Exhibit 33A. And the
entire booklet, instructional forms will be
marked Exhibit 33B. Both being offered by
the Objector and received in evidence without
objection.
171
1 2000 nonresident part-year tax
2 form was marked as Objector's
3 Exhibit No. 33A)
5 booklet, instructional forms
6 were marked as Objector's
7 Exhibit No. 33B)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Now, Mr. Romney I want to ask you to take at
Exhibit 33A, which is the definition section
appearing in the 2000 instructions. It may look
familiar to you. It may look familiar to you. I
believe it's the same one they sent up in '99.
But since we're talking about your 2000 return
we'll look at this. Because in the year 2000 you
filed as a nonresident, did you not?
That
1
s correct.
Now, take a look, please, at the definition of
nonresident.
I have now done so.
You are a nonresident if you are not a resident of
Massachusetts ~ s defined above.
Correct.
Right.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
172
Correct.
So let's take a look above. You are a full-year
resident if your legal residence, domicile was in
Massachusetts, all right?
Correct.
So, you filed as a nonresident and not as a
resident.
Yes, that's my original filing.
That's your original filing. That was a mistake.
That was wrong.
That wasn't in accordance with instructions that
go out to the taxpayers, was it?
That's correct.
And so in the year 2002, in April, you filed
different tax returns for the year 2000.
That's correct.
Let me turn briefly to another subject.
the witness?
22
23
24
Q. I'm going to show you what appears to be an
article in the Boston Herald, February 22, 2001.
Do you see that?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Yes.
A little over a year ago.
Mm-mm.
173
Quote, "politics is something that I expect will
be in my future, but where and when, who the heck
knows, said Romney." Did you say that?
Yes. I --
So --
I -- I don't have a present memory of it, but I
presume I did.
Okay. So, at that time you were going into
politics but you hadn't decided where. Fair
enough?
I was thinking about someday going into politics
again and --
You hadn't decided where?
Mm-mm. That's correct.
Well, let me show you next an interview that you
gave to Channel Four news in Utah to a reporter,
Chris Vanoker. Do you see the name Chris Vanoker?
I do, yes.
Do you recognize that last name?
I do.
And you are quoted as saying, "we do love it here
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A.
174
in Utah, I think it will be very hard for us to
just pack it up and move away." Did you say that?
I presume so.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Do you have a date
on that?
MR. STEINFIELD: Absolutely. July
4th 1 2 0 01.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Next I show you a clipping from the Deserate News,
Monday August 20, 2001. The tile of which is
Public Service for Romney.
Yes.
Do you see that?
Quote, ~ t h e r e is tugs in both directions, both
Utah and Massachusetts. The kids and grand kids
are increasingly in Utah. But the snow, the
horses and the mountains are here," close quote.
No.
So, they got it wrong.
They made an obvious error in the transmission to
that. Do you want me to point it out to you?
Sure.
It says here the kids and grand kids are
increasingly in Utah. In fact, all of my
grandchildren and my kids at the time were in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
175
Massachusetts with the exception of one child
going to Brigham Young University. So, they
missed Utah and Massachusetts. That's why the
next sentence begins, but the snow and horses are
here in Utah. So, I was pointing out that there
are tugs in both directions. Both Utah and
Massachusetts.
That's fair. Let me show you an Associated Press
clipping dated August 20th, 2001 on the subject,
Romney mulls another run for public office.
Quote, "he said he would examine political
opportunities, quote, some where between
California and Massachusetts then laughed, quote,
really between Utah and Massachusetts."
an accurate quote?
Is that
It I don't ~ e c a l l precisely, but I don't
disagree with it.
And then let me show you August 21, 2001. Same
general subject. In Utah or Massachusetts, Romney
said he was not certain specifying only that he is
interested in living between these geographical
holes.
That is actually not a quote so I would -- I would
not have any comment on that one.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q.
A.
Q.
176
Accurate in substance, isn't it?
If you want to phrase it as a question I'll be
happy to express the view which is, I indicated
that when the Olympics were over I would consider
the widest range of political options and there
was no particular geographic conclusion as to
which ones I'd consider.
Let me next show you --
MR. MONTGOMERY: Excuse me Mr.
Steinfield. I hate to interrupt, but could
you identify the publication to which you
referred for that last statement.
MR. STEINFIELD: Salt Lake Tribune
and that's August 21, 2001.
THE COMMISSIONER: Is that the same
one for the August 20th?
MR. STEINFIELD: The August 20 is
the Deserate News.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Then there was
another August 2oth that was an AP?
MR. STEINFIELD: Yes. Associated
22 Press.
24 Q. Next let me show you an article appearing in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Daily Herald. That's the Utah Herald that we
talked apout before. September 11th, 2001. Do
you have that in front of you?
I do.
Now, if you just take a look at the article and
satisfy yourself that this has to do with the
governor's race in Utah.
Yes.
177
And on the second page, quote, ~ i t may be
something I run for, it may be something I'm asked
to do, Romney said."
Excuse me.
Do you see that?
Would you read the previous line?
Sure. Romney in published reports said, ~ h e has
no idea what path he may take after the winter
games are over." And that's an accurate quote,
right?
The first part where the comment. The second part
is, it may be something I run for, it may be
something I'm asked to do. I don't know the it
there refers to the governor's race in Utah.
That's why I asked you the question I asked you.
This article deals with the governor's race in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Utah. You take a look at it.
The article does, but my --
Take your time.
-- but my quote may or may not.
178
So, in other words you have an article about the
governor's race in Utah, you're talking about some
other governor's race. Is that what you're
saying?
What I'm saying is that this was not an interview
done by -- by the author of me associated with
this article. It's It's a quote pulled from
somewhere else. It says Romney in published
reports said.
The fact of the matter is you said more than once
that you would consider running for Governor of
Utah, didn't you?
Let's see. It's possible. I don't recall having
said that, but what I said was when the games were
over I would consider the widest range of
political options and I don't recall saying that I
would specifically that I would consider running
for Governor in Utah. I don't require -- recall
saying I would shut the door on it either. But I
said I'd review the widest range of options when
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
179
the games were complete.
And in fact that's exactly what the Boston Herald
quotes you as saying. Let me show you that
article. take a close
look at the political landscape when the games are
over, Romney said. Not only what's in
Massachusetts but other places as well."
Correct.
Is it fair to say then that at that time you were
not restricting yourself to Massachusetts were
you?
Not Not immediately.
And so it's fair to say, is it not, that you did
not then have a fixed or certain plan to return
and run here in Massachusetts? Fixed or certain.
Fixed and certain to run in Massachusetts, that's
correct. That was only developed by me after the
games were over.
Let me show you next from the Deserate News,
February 2002. Quote, has declined to
say when he'll announce his intentions or even
where he'll call home, Deer Valley or Belmont,
Mass. I can keep working for three years,
Romney said, or I can be gone the day after the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
180
games are over." That's what you said, isn't it?
The second portion is what I said. The first
portion I did not say.
So the press got it wrong?
No, the press didn't get it wrong. You just asked
me what I said and I said the portion that I
quoted. The first
That's what I meant.
The first portion was not said by me it was
written by a reporter. The second portion is what
I said. That's correct.
All right. So, what you said is, I can keep
working here for three years or I can be gone the
day after the games are over.
That's correct.
So when you made that remark you had no fixed or
certain intention to return to Massachusetts, did
you?
No, you're incorrect with that. I don't know how
to say yes or no to that question that you are
asking, but that's incorrect. I had an intention
to return Massachusetts. I did not know precisely
the date I would return to Massachusetts.
Well you were quoted as saying, "there is no
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
181
question I was living in Utah 365 days a year for
the last three years." You remember saying that
don't you?
That's correct.
The last three years being 2001, 2000 and 1999.
Right?
Yes. Obviously
And --
Excuse me. I'm sorry.
And you're about to tell me, well obviously that's
not quite true, aren't you?
That's correct. That's a high
Because your tax return indicates that you only
lived half a year in 1999 --
That's correct.
-- in Utah.
I was not literally there 365 days. There were
days that I was traveling, there were days -
there was a part-year and so forth. But the point
was that that is where I have been a resident for
three years.
So Mr. Romney, based on the articles we've just
reviewed is it fair to say that you were living in
Utah throughout the year 2001?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
182
Yes.
And during the course of the year 2001 you were
asked from time to time what your political plans
might be. Right?
Correct.
And during that year is it fair to say that you
had no fixed or certain plans to return to
Massachusetts, yes or no?
You need to help me define what you mean by fixed
and certain plans. Because I did --
Well, let --
I did --
me try and do that.
I did plan to return to Massachusetts at some
point.
Some sort of a floating intention to return at
some future time. Is that what you're telling us?
Mostly like at the end of the Olympics, but I
could stay -- I could end up going to Washington
D.C., for instance, for a year or two and then
come to Massachusetts.
Or you could have stayed on as you've told the
press, and you confirmed the accuracy of t h ~ t
quote, "for another three years."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
183
Conceivably.
MR. STEINFIELD: That's all. Thank
you.
you. Now before we go into direct
examination I think we promised Mr. Tierney
that he have the opportunity if he so desired
to ask Mr. Romney relevant questions. Would
you like to do that now, sir?
MR. TIERNEY: Yes, I would. I thank
the Commission for allowing me --
MR. TIERNEY: -- to be taken out of
order.
THE COMMISSIONER: And for the
record you're Mr. Thomas Tierney and you're
an Objector to Mr. Romney's candidacy on the
basis or residency. Is that a fair
statement?
MR. TIERNEY: That's correct. I was
formerly case number 0207 and now it's
consolidated I think
THE COMMISSIONER: You still are
case number -- Can I just call you 0 seven
184
1 for short? All right. You ask what you'd
2 like.
3 (By Mr. Tierney)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Good Afternoon, Mr. Romney. I have just one
question for you, sir.
At any point in time after calendar year 1998
did you become either through your own direction
or ~ h r o u g h some inadvertence register to vote in
the state of Utah or any of its political
subdivisions?
No.
MR. TIERNEY: Thank you. That's
all.
you Mr. Tierney. We appreciate your
participation.
MR. STEINFIELD: May I, with
apologies, give you the latest report from
Utah.
THE COMMISSIONER: That's not a good
start.
MR. STEINFIELD: I knew I didn't
like technology. We are now being told the
counsel for the newspaper are objecting to a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
185
deposition that restricts them to the scope
of direct examination. That is to say, the
Judge said you can ask those specific
questions and you can cross examine on those.
They're now going to object because they want
the chance, it says here, to object -- to
cross examine freely and without restriction.
So, our friends in Utah are waiting. I would
suggest that -- I don't know if Mr.
Montgomery and I have any great disagreement.
For purposes of these proceedings why don't
we just indicate that we agree with the
judge, they can go forward, ask on direct,
restrict the cross and get it done. Is that
agreeable?
MR. MONTGOMERY: I'd have to think
about that.
THE COMMISSIONER: You have fifteen
seconds.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Restrict the
cross --
MR. STEINFIELD: In accordance with
Judge Nehring's order.
THE COMMISSIONER: That was the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
original
MR. MONTGOMERY: Oh, so cross
examination is limited to the scope of
direct?
MR. MONTGOMERY: Oh, that's fine.
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, under the
federal -- federal rule type --
MR. STEINFIELD: Exactly.
MR. MONTGOMERY: That's fine.
That's just fine.
MR. STEINFIELD: All right. We'll
see if they'll --
186
MR. STEINFIELD: -- do it that way.
And thank you. Thank you, Mr. Romney.
THE COMMISSIONER: Good. It is
twenty of four. I think we'd like to get
some more business done this afternoon. How
long would you anticipate going this
afternoon?
MR. MONTGOMERY: Well, I can go,
actually, as long as you'd like.
THE COMMISSIONER: That's what I was
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
187
afraid you'd say.
MR. MONTGOMERY: But what I suggest,
actually, is that if we were to go until
4:00. I would like to have some time now, in
light of the direct examination, to organize
the documents in a fashion that, assuming it
doesn't attract an objection, gets them in
before you to some extent in batches. I
don't have any interest in submitting to you
one by one, through Mr. Romney, bills that he
has paid for his telephone, his sewer and
cable services. So, I would like to get that
done so we could do it in groups.
THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.
MR. MONTGOMERY: And I think that I
would have a better chance of doing that this
evening
THE COMMISSIONER: If -- If we
adjourned at 4:00.
MR. MONTGOMERY: -- rather than on
the fly in front of all of you.
THE COMMISSIONER: Is that
agreeable. That's fine by the Commission.
So when you get a normal stopping point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
188
around four we'll just call that for the day.
All right. And I assume
other witness you'd like to
Do you have any
I keep
forgetting that this is the Objector's case
going forwarded. So, if you want to reserve
on your cross examination.
MR. MONTGOMERY: That's a very good
point.
THE COMMISSIONER: He's your own
witness.
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, I at the
present time, do not intend to call any other
witness unless the Commission for purposes of
these proceedings wishes the Objector to be
sworn to identify herself and identify her
status. There has been no objection to that.
THE COMMISSIONER: I
stipulate to the agreement of
proper person.
We can
she's a
MR. STEINFIELD: That's fine. Thank
you. And --
THE COMMISSIONER: And I understand
that she is an Executive Director of the
democratic state committee?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Yes.
189
MR. STEINFIELD: Executive Director?
THE COMMISSIONER: So I think that
her -- her title indicates she is involved
with the Democratic State Committee who has
been referred to as the Objecting party, and
properly so.
MR. STEINFIELD: As you know the law
states that a proceeding of this sort maybe
brought by --
THE COMMISSIONER: By one or more
voters.
MR. STEINFIELD: Yes. And she
qualifies in that respect. And it is quite
true that Ms. Thompson is so employed.
THE COMMISSIONER: No, I think that
it's appropriate that a representative in an
opposing party who has a question of
residency be the person to bring the
MR. 9TEINFIELD: Oh, I didn't think
there was anything pejorative in your
comment.
THE COMMISSIONER: No, no. Good.
All right. Well, under those circumstances
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
we'll allow you to rest with the right to
recall witnesses.
190
MR. STEINFIELD: I suppose the only
question is whether we get some documents
from the Department of Revenue and if so we
reserve the ght to recall Mr. Romney. And
I'm assuming of course that we'll have the
opportunity to ask him some redirect
questions within your discretion.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, to all
questions. And we have depositions coming in
which might alter the witness -
THE COMMISSIONER: structure too,
so -- But for now why don't you just
commence, Mr. Montgomery.
MS. KELLEY-SULLIVAN: Is Mr. Romney
still on the stand?
THE COMMISSIONER: Hum?
MS. KELLEY-SULLIVAN: Yes, he's
still Do you want to excuse this witness
or do you want to --
MR. MONTGOMERY: No, no, no. I
would like to continue with Mr. Romney.
1
2
3
* * * * *
C R 0 S S E X A M I N A T I 0 N
191
4 *****
5 (By Mr. Montgomery)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Mr. Romney could you please just summarize for the
Commission the circumstances that first led you to
Massachusetts in 1971?
I was admitted to the Harvard Law School. And
moved here in, I believe, September of 1971. I
purchased a home on Win Street in Belmont and
moved in with my wife and one son.
And how long did you reside in the home you
purchased on Win Street?
Approximately seven years, after which I purchased
another home in Belmont on Tyler road. I lived
there another, I guess, five to ten years. And
then purchased a home on Marsh Street in Belmont.
And you had a residence in Belmont there for --
continuously from 1971 until today?
That's correct. In the common understanding of
what having a residence is. I think I purchased
the first home. I think I purchased the second
home. I'm not sure if it was in my name or Ann's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
192
name. And the third home that we live in now has
been shown to have been legally titled under her
name.
And am I correct that at some point in time after
moving to Massachusetts in 1971 you registered to
vote?
That's correct.
And you have not been registered to vote anywhere
else since that time?
That's correct.
And am I correct that you have since first
registering remained a registered voter in the
Commonwealth and in the town of Belmont
continuously through to today?
I have.
Could you describe yourself for the Commission,
the circumstances that led you to -- Strike that
question. Let me
When did you first purchase property in Utah?
In 1998, I believe.
And as of the time that you purchased the property
Was that the Deer Valley property?
That's correct.
And at that time were you considering any
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
opportunity to take up residence in Utah to run
the Olympic games?
No.
And what was the purpose of your purpose
purchase of the Deer Valley property?
We were building a vacation - The idea was to
193
purchase the property in which to build a vacation
home.
And do you recall when construction began on that
home?
I really don't recall when construction began on
the home. I think shortly thereafter. I believe
construction was completed I said --
Construction was completed in about May or June,
I'd say, of 1998. So I must have purchased it a
good
that.
you know -- year, year and a half ~ e f o r e
Now, as of January 1, 1999 you were employed in
Massachusetts, isn't that true?
That's correct.
And where were you employed?
I was employed at Bank Capital Incorporated.
And how long had you been at Bank Capital?
I had been at Bank Capital since December of 1984.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Bank Capital Incorporated or its predecessor
Partnerships and Corporations.
And prior to 1984 where had you been employed?
194
I had been employed at Baine and Company prior to
1984 beginning, I believe, in 1978. Prior to that
I'd been employed by the Boston Consulting Group.
Having taken employment there in 1975.
As of January 1, 1999, where were your bank
accounts?
My checking and savings account or savings account
equivalent, which is the -- I believe it was
either Shawmut or Fleet at this point. I think it
may have switched to Fleet at that point. I'm not
sure when it did but it went, as I recall,
Shawmut, Bank Boston then Fleet. So, one of the
above and then my investments, including some cash
accounts, were kept at Golden Saks Boston office.
Now, as of January 1, 1999 were you a director of
any corporations?
I was. I believe I was the director of -- at that
time, Marriot International, Staples Incorporated
and Life Like Corporation.
Where is Staples Headquartered?
Staples is headquartered in Framingham
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
195
Massachusetts. Life Like Corporation is in
Colorado. And Marriot International is in
Bethesda, Maryland. Excuse me I -- Excuse me I
neglected to mention that I was also director of
the Sports Authority Incorporated at that time.
And the Sports Authority Incorporated is located
in Fort Lauderdale Florida.
And were you a member of any social clubs as of
January 1999?
I was. The Belmont Hill Club, which is located in
Belmont.
And did you pay dues to maintain that membership?
I have paid dues since we joined a number of years
ago and continue to pay dues to the Belmont Hill
Club.
You mentioned that you have five children. And
your children were all raised in Massachusetts?
That's correct. My-- Upon arriving in
Massachusetts in approximately September of 1971,
that would have made my oldest son just over a
year. Our remaining children were born after we
moved to Massachusetts. All of them attended the
Winbrook Elementary School in Belmont. All of
them attended the Belmont Hill School following
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
196
that. And all have, interestingly enough, also
attended Brigham Young University following high
school.
My wife will be pleased that you mentioned the
Winbrook School where she was a teacher for many
years. And prior to January 1, 1999 you were a
candidate for public office in Massachusetts,
weren't you?
I was. In 1994 I was the republican nominee for
the race for United States Senate.
Now, other than your home in Belmont, and your
vacation house in Utah, as of January 1, 1999 did
you own any other house?
My -- My memory on dates is going to be a
challenge.
Well, there was some reference to New Hampshire
Yes. I --
-- during your direct examination.
And I'm not sure exactly when we purchased the New
Hampshire home, but I believe it was before
January 1st of 1999. We purchased a home in
Wolfboro New Hampshire with the property around
it.
And is that on Lake Winnepesaukee.
197
1 A. It is.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
And what was What has been the purpose to
which you've put that property?
That's a vacation house.
Now, could you explain to the Commission
Though I think everybody is quite well aware of
it. But in your own words the circumstances that
led you to move to Utah in 1999?
Yes. Following the bid scandal associated with
the Olympic winter games in Salt Lake City and the
resignation of the Chief Executive Officer of the
Salt Lake Organizing Committee, a search went out
to find someone to come take over that position.
I was -- Actually my wife was contacted by a
mutual friend of ours in Salt Lake City who had
been asked by others to approach me and see
.whether I would consider taking the job. He spoke
instead to my wife, surmising that I would
immediately brush him off. She called me. I told
her there is no way I'd take the job, but she
prevailed over the next several days for me to
take a close look at it. We took a trip to Utah
to go skiing and to see our vacation home. During
that time I met with a number of individuals in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Q.
198
Utah associated with the Olympics. Ultimately I
met with the search committee that the Salt Lake
Organizing Committee Board put together, which
consisted of a number of individual including the
Governor of the state, a member of the
International Olympic Committee, and a member of
the United States Olympic Committee. I was given
an offer to come to Salt Lake City and run the
Olympic winter games there as the Chief
Executive Officer and President. Accepted that
offer and showed up to the first board meeting on
February 11th, 2002.
At that point, Mr. Romney, did you become an
employee of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee?
THE COMMISSIONER: On February 11th,
16 of what year?
17 (By The Witness)
18
19
A. Excuse me. February 11th, of 1999.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Thank you, Mr.
20 Chairman.
21 (By The Witness)
A. That's right. I,t' s been a short experience. I -- 22
23
24
I presume I technically became an employee shortly
after arriving on February 11th, of 1999. I did
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
199
not receive compensation because I requested that
that be held and if the games were profitable that
it would be given to me then, but if the games
were not profitable I would not be paid. But I do
believe I filed W twos and received various
benefits and they both needed to be reported. So
I presume I was an employee in that respect.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Mr. Romney, would
you like a glass of water, by the way?
THE WITNESS: No. That's fine.
11 That's fine.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
What prompted you to accept the offer of the
Olympic Organizing Committee?
I feel very deeply about the Olympics and believe
that the games serve a great purpose in bringing
the world together and in healing the world in
some respect. I believe the athletes of the games
serve as role models and help inspire young people
around the world. And I felt that the Olympic
games were in severe trouble. Not only for the
games themselves, but also for our country and our
hosting the games. And And it was in
discussing that that my wife was able to convince
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
200
me that I should leave my employer of many years,
which had become very lucrative and -- and that we
should leave our children and grandchild and move
to our vacation house for purposes of running the
games. Actually, she didn't suggest going to the
vacation house she suggested we go to Salt Lake
City. I actually began by renting an apartment in
Salt Lake City because the vacation house is a
little remote for the job. But ultimately gave up
the apartment and moved into that vacation house.
I don't want you to go into great detail on this
but I would like you to summarize for the
Commission what happened over the succeeding three
years, in your work for the Olympics Organizing
Committee?
It Was a very substantial challenge to organize
the games. As you can image organizationally it
was an enormous task. We had financial challenges
which we were able to overcome. We had a public
relations and reputation challenge. As you can
imagine giving the bid scandal that we were able
to overcome. And ultimately we had a very severe
threat of potential terrorism given the effects of
September 11th. And we were able to overcome
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
201
those challenges as well and organize games which
hosted people from all over the world. And games
which many of us believe were superb.
Now, during the time that you were in Utah working
on the games, in your capacity as -- as President
of the Olympic Organizing Committee I assume that
you had contact with people outside of Utah.
rrha t I S correct
What kind of contacts did you have outside of
Utah?
I traveled to attend International Olympic
Committee Meetings, United States Olympic
Committee Meetings. I met with potential
sponsors. I spent a great deal of time meeting
with the Federal Government. The -- The Clinton
administration had established a White House Task
Force for organizing the Olympic Games.
Organizing the effort of the Federal Government in
hosting the Olympic games. I therefore met on
regular occasion with Thurgood Marshall Junior and
Mickey Ahara, who are the two members of the white
house staff responsible for overseeing this task
force and the twenty or so representatives of the
various agencies of the Federal Government to help
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
organize these games. Following September 11th,
as you can imagine, the interaction with the
202
Federal Government increased substantially.
trips to Washington increased dramatically
So my
following September 11th. So, my travel included
international spots for meeting with the
international Olympic Committee, Colorado for the
United States Olympic Committee and then many
trips to Washington D.C. in meeting with our
government preparing for the games and of course
calling on potential sponsors. And I'd also note
that there were a number of social trips and
business trips that brought me back to
Massachusetts, boaid meetings, Thanksgiving and so
forth. Summer vacation and so forth.
Let me just explore a little bit the subject of
returns to Massachusetts. When you landed in the
midst of this Olympic scandal on February 11th,
and you were in Salt Lake City where was your wife
Ann?
Ann stayed behind in -- in Belmont and continued
to live there as my son was completing his high
school which he would complete -- I don't recall
his graduate date. It was June, I believe, of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
203
1999. I came back and spoke at his graduation.
She stayed behind in Belmont and lived there with
him.
Now you mentioned earlier that you were a member
of a number of boards. Did you continue to serve
on any of those boards during the time that you
were serving the Olympic effort in Utah?
Yes. I immediately resigned from the board of the
Sports Authority located in Florida. Feeling it
could present a conflict of interest with my
Olympic responsibilities and of course the travel
could be challenging as well. I remained on the
board of the Staples Corporation and Marriot
International, the Life Like Corporation. And I
remained as a corporator of the Belmont Hill
School.
Now with respect to your membership on the Staples
Board. Do they have meetings from time to time I
assume?
We have approximately four to five meetings per
year.
And during the time that you were in Utah did you
return to Massachusetts for any of those meetings?
I returned for most of those meetings. Others I
1
2
attended by telephone if I could not return.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Just give me a
204
3 minute.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Now in addition to returning to speak at your
son's commencement and for Staples Board meetings,
did you return to Massachusetts on any other
occasions?
Well, we came back for Thanksgiving and other
holidays and for special events. My -- My church
constructed a temple not far from our home. And I
returned to see that before it was dedicated and
invited some friends to take a tour. I actually
hosted a number of people going through that
building including Senator Kennedy. I then
returned also to attend the dedication of that
building. I actually left the Sydney Olympics the
last day of the Sydney Olympics and flew all night
and then the next day to get back to Belmont to
participate in the dedication of the Belmont
temple of our church. And perhaps the most
special occasion was the marriage of my son.
Josh, who chose to be married in that -- in that
same building in Belmont and I've of course flew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
205
back with wife to attend that. So there were
various social occasions and and business
occasions as well. I called on potential sponsors
in Boston and those types of items.
Were there any occasions where your Olympic duties
brought you back to Massachusetts?
Yes, there were. I called on, for instance,
Monster dot com to solicit a sponsorship from
them, which was successful. And I actually
pitched other Massachusetts companies as well.
Not all were successful. And donors. I asked for
donations from Massachusetts individuals and I was
singularly unsuccessful in getting those.
Did you -- When the Olympic torch was traveling
from city to city did you attend events involving
the Olympic torch in various cities?
I did. I -- I attended the Olympic torch
ceremonies at the home of our two sponsors, Coca
Cola and General Motors.
So that would be
And that was Atlanta and Detroit. I attended in
Washington D.C. to be at the white house to see
the president receive the torch in the white house
lawn. And I attended in New York City to be with
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
206
Mayor Giuliani and to see the torch carried in
front of the Statute of Liberty. And of course I
came home and spent the day with the torch in
Boston and accompanied the torch all day long.
That was the only day I got to do that. I
accompanied the torch all day long through Boston.
MR. MONTGOMERY: This would be a
good place to break.
is a good breaking point. May I just ask you
one question Mr. Montgomery. What do you
think as far as witnesses concerned aside
from Mr. Romney? Who do you have to present?
I'm trying to get an idea.
MR. MONTGOMERY: At this point, Your
Honor, I believe that Mr. Romney, Barbara
Kresser who we are deposing in Utah and
perhaps one other person will be our only
witnesses. But I am thinking on
THE COMMISSIONER: Don't think too
strenuously now.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I'm not going to
think too strenuously. I'm going to let you
know first thing in the morning.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
207
Anything you would like to add, Mr.
Steinfield.
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, last Friday
we were told it would be Mr. Romney. Now I
would be interested in knowing about this new
witness. Apparently we're not going to find
out until tomorrow.
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, maybe you
can elicit from your colleague.
MR. STEINFIELD: Perhaps he can tell
me today who he is thinking off?
THE COMMISSIONER: That might be a
nice idea if you could do that for you. And
we'll resume tomorrow morning at 10:00 sharp.
Is that okay with the Commission? All right.
Thank you all. We stand adjourned until
tomorrow at 10:00.
(Whereupon the hearing was concluded at 4:00p.m.)
CERTIFICATE
COUNTY OF NORFOLK, SS
208
I, KAREN M. PARLEE, a Professional
Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ballot Hearing was
taken before me on June 17, 2002. The said testimony was taken
audiographically by myself and then transcribed under my direction.
To the best of my knowledge, the within transcript is a complete, true
and accurate record of said Deposition.
I am not connected by blood or
marriage with any of the said parties, nor interested directly or
indirectly in the matter in controversy.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto
set my hand and Notary Seal this 21st, day of June, 2002.
J!.(hhvfYl. ~ .
KafunM. Parlee, Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
November 29, 2007
PLEASE NOTE: THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATION OF THIS TRANSCRIPT DOES
NOT APPLY TO ANY REPRODUCTION OF THE SAME BY ANY MEANS UNLESS
UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL AND\OR DIRECTION OF THE CERTIFYING
REPORTER.
SUFFOLK, ss
Volume: II
Pages: 1-145
Exhibits: 34-50
STATE BALLOT LAW COMMISSION
SUSAN THOMPSON, )
AARON I. GINSBURG,)
THOMAS P. TIERNEY,)
Objectors, )
)
VS. ) Docket Nos. 02-05; 02 06; 02-07
)
MITT ROMNEY, )
Respondent. )
Before:
Held at:
Taken on:
ELECTIONS HEARING
One Ashburton Place
21st Floor
Tuesday, June 18, 2002
THE COMMISSIONERS:
Mary Sullivan Kelly
Paul F. X. Powers
Matthew Kane
John F. St. Cyr
Michelle Tassinari
Paul Lazour
Hill & Barlow
COUNSEL FOR: Susan Thomson, Objector
Hill & Barlow
Counsel for: Susan Thompson, Objector
Hill & Barlow
Counsel For: Susan Thompson, Objector
Ropes & Gray
Ropes & Gray
Counsel For: Mr. Romney, The Respondent
Lee & Associates * certed court Reyorters * (781) 848-9693
2
MITT ROMNEY
By Mr. Montgomery
By Mr. Steinfield
I N D E X
DIRECT CROSS
19
REDIRECT
113
Lee & Associates * c e r t ~ e d court Reporters * ( 781) 848-9693
3
RECROSS
131
34A
34B
35A
35B
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45A
45B
45C
46
E X H I B I T S
DESCRIPTION
Boston Plus Statement of Accounts,
10/08/99 to 11/05/99
Bank Boston
1
Boston Plus Statement
of Accounts/ 1/08/00 to 2/07/00
Fleet Bank Private Client Group
statement dated 9/30/00
Fleet Bank Private Client Group
statement dated 9/30/01
Copies of 3 checks drawn on Fleet Bank
to Metrocast Cablevision
1
Belmont
Municipal Light Dept
1
and Lyons Fuel
Copies of various paid invoices and
canceled checks
Listing of the Alexis de Tocqueville
Society members
Various excise tax and property tax
invoices
Charitable Gift statements
Insurance Summary from Provider
Insurance Group
Belmont Town Committee Listings for
1993
1
1996
1
and 2000
Portions of Utah Tax Code
Instructions for Filing Form 1-NR/PY
1
1999 MA Income Tax Return
1
Lee & Associates * certed court Reporters * ( 781) 848-9693
4
PAGE
28
28
29
29
30
32
39
43
44
47
48
68
70
73
73
73
81
5
E X H I B I T S
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
47 Copies of four New Hampshire recreational
vehicle registrations 83
48 Summitt County Assessors Signed
Statement of Primary Residence,
blank form 92
49 Insurance Coverage Update 116
SO Affidavit of Lisa Roche 134
Lee & ASsociates * certed court Reyorters * ( 781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
6
P R 0 C E E D I N G S
Tuesday, June 18, 2002
10:04 a.m.
THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning,
everybody. Before introducing everybody, my
first order of business is we have a new
stenographer who's welcome today. I wonder
if you'd stand to be sworn.
(Whereupon, Susan K. Arvidson, was
duly sworn as the Court Reporter.)
THE COMMISSIONER: Again, welcome.
This is the second day of the hearing on
three related cases that have been
consolidated, Susan Thompson, Objector,
versus Mitt Romney, Respondenti Aaron
Ginsburg, Objector, versus Mitt Romney,
Respondenti and Thomas Tierney, Objector,
versus Mitt Romney, Respondent. We had a
pretrial hearing on Friday and a full day of
testimony with Hill & Barlow led by Joe
Steinfield, John Gilmore, and Susan Flanagan
Cahill representing the Objector, Susan
Lee & ASsocfates * c e r t ~ e d court Reyorters * ( 781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Thompson, and the Respondent in all cases
being represented by Ropes & Gray, John T.
Montgomery and Peter L. Ebb.
It's my understanding that
Mr. Tierney was here yesterday and has been
given the opportunity to ask a question of
Mr. Romney and indicated he might be
withdrawing the petition. Is that your
understanding?
MS. TASSINARI: Yes, he said he
would be Fed-Exing the petition.
THE COMMISSIONER: But, that's not
been received.
MR. TASSINARI: Not yet.
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr. Aaron
Ginsburg indicated, I believe, to counsel
that he was going to offer an e mail
statement through your good office?
MR. GILMORE: I'm just the
messenger, Your Honor. He did e-mail me a
statement. I gave it this morning to
Mr. Montgomery, and with the Court's
permission, with your permission, I'll hand
it around to the members of the Commission.
Lee & Associates * c e r t ~ e d court Reyorters * (781) 848-9693
7
8
1 THE COMMISSIONER: All right, is
2 that agreeable with counsel that it be
3 received in evidence?
4 MR. MONTGOMERY: That's fine. I
5 wouldn't
6 THE COMMISSIONER: Not as evidence,
7 but as a statement of Mr. Ginsburg.
8 MR. MONTGOMERY: Of course, we have
9 no objection. We haven't read it, but that's
10 fine.
11 THE COMMISSIONER: Again, glancing
12 over the two-page statement, it seems to be
13 more in the nature of a brief or an argument,
14 and I think that I would not give it an
15 exhibit number as an exhibit, but the
16 Commission will read that with care in
17 connection with briefs that are filed by the
18 other parties. That will be received by the
19 Commission on that basis.
20 Let me just reintroduce myself. I'm
21 retired Judge Maurice Richardson of the
I
22 Dedham District Court. On my immediate right
23 is my valued senior member, Mary Sullivan
24 Kelly. Beyond her, retired judge of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Wrentham District Court, John St. Cyr. On my
immediate left, Attorney Paul Powers. Beyond
him is Attorney Matt Kane. Beyond able
counsel and acting as the clerk is Michelle
Tassinari, and beyond her, our special
counsel, Paul Lazour. Welcome and thank you,
all.
When we recessed yesterday
afternoon, Mr. Montgomery was actually, his
client had been testifying, and he took over
after direct examination. Would you like to
proceed with Mr. Romney now or are there
preliminary matters first?
MR. MONTGOMERY: There are a few
preliminary matters, Your Honor. First, and
I hope we don't need to take too much more
time with this subject, but we did have some
discussion yesterday about the deposition or
affidavit of Lisa Riley Roche in Utah. My
understanding is that after we broke for the
day, that an affidavit was secured and signed
by Ms. Riley Roche.
My further understanding, and I'd
like to know whether Mr. Steinfield has a
Lee & Associates * cert*ed court Reporters * (781) 848-9693
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
similar understanding, is that Judge Nehring
made it clear that he would not permit any
cross examination of Ms. Riley Roche, and in
particular, that he would not permit any
cross examination that went to her
credibility.
That having been said, we of course
have agreed, and I have absolutely no
difficulty when it arrives, with the
inclusion of her affidavit in this record.
We certainly will have some things to say
about the weight you might accord to that
affidavit, but as a basic proposition, its
inclusion in this record is perfectly okay
with us, so long as it's understood that it
was not subject to cross examination, and
therefore, there are questions that one
naturally might like to ask the reporter
about her recollection.
MR. STEINFIELD: Mr. Chairman, the
judge in Utah did not rule that there could
be no cross examination, and less there be
any question about it, he has provided a
Lee & Associates * c e r t ~ e d court Reporters * (781) 848-9693
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
11
telephone number and invites you to call him,
a call which I suggest really isn't
necessary, but I leave it up to you. What
the judge said was, as I reported yesterday,
that the cross examination is limited to the
scope of the direct examination, and the
direct examination was to be limited in
scope.
Without spending more time on this
issue, it is true that an affidavit has been
provided. We will introduce that affidavit
or ask that it be introduced without
objection before we rest, and it appears to
me that that issue will then be resolved, and
I suppose Mr. Montgomery is correct, you will
give the affidavit what weight you believe it
is entitled to receive.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I think in the last
order of business yesterday
1
you asked me,
Your Honor, whether we intended to present
any witnesses other than Mr. Romney. The
answer to that is no, and so we're hopeful
that we can conclude the evidence today,
subject to the receipt of this affidavit and
Lee & ASsociates * c e r t ~ e d court Reyorters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
12
the transcript of the deposition testimony of
Barbara Kresser from the Summitt County
Assessor,s Office. That deposition did
proceed and was concluded last evening.
THE COMMISSIONER: It would be my
feeling, if the Commission agrees, that we
accept the agreed-upon affidavit.
(Commission conferring.)
THE COMMISSIONER: In all
probability, it will be acceptable, but they
would like to see the document before they
close the door on that issue.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Sure.
MR. STEINFIELD: Let me comment, if
I may, on this last item of business. I have
not seen a transcript of Ms. Kresser
1
s
deposition. What I think makes sense is the
following. That the testimony here today
proceed; that the affidavit be produced
and offered, and I assume admitted, with
Mr. Montgomery,s consent; that if there is
ample time today, counsel make their
closings, but that the receipt of the
Kresser
1
s testimony be held open for
Lee & Associates * certified court Reyorters * ( 781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
13
admission after we've had an opportunity to
review it and determine whether we are going
to object, whether he is going to offer all
or some, and should there be no objection, it
can simply be filed, I assume, by the end of
the week. Should there be objection on our
part, we would, of course, let you know, and
then you could rule on those objections.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that would
be helpful if counsel had the first
opportunity to review the deposition when it
came in; review it, see what objections there
might be on it, and hopefully, you may be
able to resolve all or some of those
objections, and then with you having acted on
it, you would present it to the Commission
and we would rule on that. We don't need to
have an actual formal hearing, I don't think,
on that.
THE COMMISSIONER: Why don't we
basically hope that all the materials will be
in by Friday. The order of production with
respect to the document requested, being the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
last page of Mr. Romney's 1999 tax return,
the original that was filed, which hopefully
you're trying to pursue --
MR. MONTGOMERY: I was going to
raise that subject.
14
THE COMMISSIONER: We had a Friday
deadline on that, to use your best efforts
between that period of time. That might be
the date to focus on if we finish up on other
matters today, keep everything open until
Friday.
MR. MONTGOMERY: The deposition of
Ms. Kresser is material to the claims that
have been made by the Objector here. We
expect to have the transcript by the end of
the day, or at the latest, the first thing
tomorrow morning. Our preference would be to
complete this record by tomorrow, not by
Friday, and we leave it up to you as to
whether you would wish to hear closing
arguments today or wait until the Kresser
deposition is before you, because certainly
in my closing, I'm going to talk about her
testimony. It's a little bit difficult for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
15
me to do that without you having acted upon
any objections to the scope and admissibility
of that testimony. I frankly will be
extremely surprised if there is any portion
of that testimony that you do not receive.
MR. STEINFIELD: I will not object
to Mr. Montgomery referring to the Kresser
testimony during his closing. Even though
that may appear to have the cart before the
horse, as a practical matter, he's probably
right. That transcript needs to be reviewed,
I need a few hours to do that. If we can do
it by tomorrow, we will, but there's no
reason to hold up the closing arguments and
getting this portion of the- proceeding
completed.
So, Mr. Montgomery, if you wish to
refer to Ms. Kresser during your closing,
that's fine with me.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I appreciate that,
Mr. Steinfield.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you,
gentlemen. I think it's the desire of the
Commission that we'd like to move this along
Lee & Associates * c e r t ~ e d court Reyorters * ( 78 I) 848-9693 .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
16
as expeditiously as we can. We have a
deadline of the 28th. We do not necessarily
want to wait that long if we can resolve the
matter sooner. So, as soon as we complete
the evidence, we can then turn to our task of
deliberation and preparation of our opinion.
So, we'd be happy, and we have reserved
tomorrow, we'd be happy to continue until
tomorrow if there's a need to do so.
MR. MONTGOMERY: As I said, we would
like to have the evidence completely before
you by tomorrow, including all of these --
we keep all of our options open and just
proceed today as far as we can with that in
mind.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Finally, with
respect to the page from the '99 and 2000
returns that we're attempting to obtain from
the Department of Revenue, our information
this morning from the Department is that
while on the one hand, they would not
voluntarily comply with the subpoena served
by Hill & Barlow, we have submitted to DOR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
17
the requisite forms that are necessary for
the Department to release to Mr. Romney his
returns. Our understanding is that one or
more of those returns are in storage in
Chelsea, and that the entire Department of
Revenue has been mobilized to get the
returns, to bring them to Ashburton Place,
and to put them in our hands, and when we
have them, which we hope would be in the next
several hours, we will redact them and make
them available.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, and I
appreciate your diligence in that regard.
Any other preliminary matters?
MR. MONTGOMERY: Nothing else. I
would recall Mr. Romney.
THE COMMISSIONER: We will turn the
floor over to you, sir.
You've taken the oath and that is
binding on you from day to day until the
proceedings are terminated.
MR. ROMNEY: Thank you.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Actually, there
is one other housekeeping matter before we
Lee & Associates* c e r t ~ e d court Reyorters * (781) 84-8-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
begin. In terms of the bulk of the exhibits
that I would like to introduceduring
18
Mr. Romney's testimony, what we would like to
suggest in order to avoid the exercise of
passing them out to counsel and members of
the Commission, I have prepared binders
containing most of the documents that I'm
going to use. You may receive them, there
may be objections, or you may not receive
them. But, I would like to put the binders
in front of you, and as we get to a tab, we
can turn to that tab, and if it is admitted,
it can be marked and then put into our
respective exhibit binders. I think that
would avoid some of the logistics that took
so much time yesterday, if there are no
objections to that procedure. Of course,
we'll give Mr. Steinfield a copy of the
binder, as well.
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I'm not a
binder fellow, so you can put one in front of
me, but I'm just going to take the things out
and put them in this.
MR. MONTGOMERY: That's exactly what
Lee & ASsociates * c e r t ~ e d court Reyorters * ( 781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I'm suggesting that you do. What I want to
do is have them in front of you in an
organized way so that you can turn to them.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right
1
fine.
MR. MONTGOMERY: So
1
with your
permission
1
we will hand out the binders.
19
8 You may proceed
1
Counsel.
9 MITT ROMNEY, Resumed
10 CONTINUED CROSS EXAMINATION
11 (BY MR. MONTGOMERY)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
Mr. Romney
1
when you left for Utah to assume your
duties with the Olympics in February, what did you
take with you?
I actually took some clothes that I thought I
would need for my assignment, and that consisted
of some suits
1
some toiletries
1
some shoes,
shirts, and that's about it. Most of my clothing
for summer and sport and so forth was left at my
home in Belmont, and all of my personal documents
and business documents
1
other than what was in my
briefcase, those things were all left in Belmont.
I think you testified yesterday; did you not, that
gradually over the months after you assumed your
Lee & Associates * c e r t ~ e d court Rryorters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
20
post, that your wife, Ann, began to spend more and
more time in Utah?
That's right. She stayed a good deal of time in
Belmont to be with our son who was continuing his
high school education, but she also came out and
spent time with me. I found the assignment to be
more draining than I had expected and more
challenging than I had anticipated, and I needed
her support to sort of make it through the
challenge. And so, she was with me pretty
frequently, as well, and she, likewise, brought
out clothing, and her clothing stack was larger
than mine.
I don't want to trivialize this exercise, but I'm
interested in the things that you left in your
home. How about furniture?
We took no furniture out to Utah, we took no
bedding. All of our files and documents, meaning
all of our tax filings, our financial records, our
bank statements, birth certificate, marriage
certificate, graduation certificates and so forth,
were all left in our files in Belmont. So, what
we took was literally able to be fit in some
suitcases and some UPS boxes and consisted of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
21
clothing and toiletries and what we needed to live
there.
Do you happen to have, by any chance, portraits of
your children?
We do have painted portraits of our children, of
course, a lot of pictures of our kids. We left
those behind.
Did there come a time in the three years that you
were in Utah that you went back to Belmont and
removed any of those materials out to Utah?
No, we left the portraits behind. We brought some
framed pictures out, I believe, to put on my desk
in the office, and some framed pictures to put in
our library in Utah, and at one point, I had my
wife bring out copies of speeches that I had given
from Massachusetts that I could draw anecdotes and
quotes from for speeches I was giving there in
Utah.
Did there come a time that you moved your personal
papers from your home in Belmont up to Utah?
No, we maintained our tax records and other
records in Belmont.
Now, I believe you also testified yesterday, both
in response to some of Mr. Steinfield's questions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
and mine, that you kept your bank accounts in
Massachusetts; is that right?
That's correct. We had a number of bank accounts
at Fleet Bank, and also an investment account at
Goldman Sachs, and those were both based in
Belmont or in Boston.
Now, what is the use to which you put the Goldman
Sachs account?
22
The Goldman Sachs account was our largest
investment account. I would note that it is
virtually entirely in the name of my wife, it is
her account, but I'll refer to it collectively,
and that is where our stock investments and our
bond investments are, and if we need cash for some
reason, we transfer the cash from the Goldman
Sachs account to the Fleet account, and the Fleet
account is, therefore, the place that we write our
checks from. We havea small savings account,
relatively, in the Fleet account. The Fleet
account is largely, one of the Fleet accounts is
largely for our paying bills. We also have a
Fleet account that we share with our accountant to
write some other bills. So, the Fleet account is
where most of our bills are being paid from and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
23
the Goldman Sachs account is where our
investments
1
by and large
1
are being held and
where cash is drawn as we need it to pay our
bills. As we know
1
I was not being paid during my
time in Salt Lake City
1
and therefore had to draw
on savings for purposes of paying our bills.
I believe you also testified yesterday that you
had a small checking account in Utah; isn
1
t that
right?
Yes
1
small in relation to the size of our checking
account and our checking activity in Boston. Our
checking activity in Boston was probably
1
I don
1
t
know
1
ten times the amount of dollar volume and
the number of just sheer checks as the number of
checks that were written from our account in Utah.
The account in Utah was for local banking
purposes
1
local convenience purposes. Some
institutions prefer a local check
1
and so we had
an account there.
Now
1
in addition to the Fleet accounts that you
maintained in Boston as of the time that you went
to Utah to take the Olympic post
1
you also
testified yesterday that there was an additional
Fleet account that was used to pay bills while you
Lee & Associates * certified court Reyorters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
were in Utah.
Yes.
24
Could you tell the Commission how you managed this
whole process of dealing with your affairs, and
particularly paying bills, during the first few
months that you were in Utah?
Well, we had a number of bills to pay, as all
people do, and we had expected that we would just
have those bills continue to come to our home in
Belmont, and we instructed one of our kids who was
living there to package them up on a regular
basis, put them in a Fed Ex envelope and send them
out to us, and then we'd write the checks from
Utah and send them to the various places we owed,
and we did that for a number of months. It turned
out to present some logistical challenges, in that
by the time they, if you will, envelope up or box
up these bills and send them to us, they got a
little late, and I don't like late charges. So,
we said we've got to find a different way to pay
our bills. I didn't really want to have to change
all the addresses on all of the bills to come to
Utah, and so decided, instead, that we'd get an
accountant, bookkeeper type individual. We'd have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
25
the bills continue to come to our home in Belmont,
but that we would then have our kids get them to
her and then she would send them out. Her name is
Becky Ames and she has a post office box in
Wellesley Hills. So, that's how we continued with
most of our bills.
There were some that we knew could be large
or that we wanted to see exactly what was being
charged, and my wife actually is the one who
organized this, that she wanted to see, and
therefore, she had them come, she did the change
of address forms and had them come to our home
there in Deer Valley, Utah. So, for instance, our
American Express bill, she wanted to see what was
being charged there, and certain tax bills and
things of that nature, she had addressed there.
So, most of our day-to-day billing went to
the bookkeeper in Wellesley Hills, but there were
several that also came to our vacation place there
in Utah.
Were you aware, Mr. Romney, that there's a
procedure by which one can go to the local post
office and file a change of address form?
Um-hmm.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Did you do that or cause that to be done at the
post office in Belmont?
26
I don't believe so. Ann was the one who managed
the, and is the one who manages the affairs, our
financial affairs for bills and things of that
nature. I believe that what she did was continue
to have the checks come to Belmont and have them
paid as I've described. I don't believe there was
any change of address. We still continued to
receive mail in Belmont from a wide range of
sources. Of course, we did notify a number of
people about our change of address, Christmas card
recipients and so forth, we notified them of our
change of address and where we were living, but I
don't believe a post office form was filled in.
But, I don't have a sure, certain memory of that.
But, as a general matter, the bookkeeper was
paying bills that did come either directly to her
or to your home in Belmont, Massachusetts.
That's correct.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I would like to
make an attempt to see if we can streamline
the proceedings and see if I can just put a
bunch of documents into the record, if
Lee & Associates * c e r t ~ e d court Rryorters * ( 781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
27
that's acceptable to the Commission and to
Mr. Steinfield, and I'd like to do it on this
general subject of bills. So, my proposal
first is that there is a group of bank
statements from Bank Boston and Fleet for
1999 and 2000. They are in the book that I
have given you as tabs 1 through 4, and I
would like to offer those.
In the same batch, I would like to
offer tab 9, which are canceled checks from
the Massachusetts bookkeeper's accounts for
2000, 2001, and 2002.
THE COMMISSIONER: I have 1, 2
1
3
and 4.
MR. MONTGOMERY: 1, 2, 3
1
4, and 9.
And as soon as we
1
re done with those, I have
another batch that I
1
d like to put in the
record.
MR. STEINFIELD: No objection.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right, why
don
1
t we take those documents and assign them
numbers, and I would like to continue with
the numbering system that we started
yesterday, and if my information is correct,
Lee & Associates * c e r t ~ e d court Rqtorters * ( 781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
28
our last number was Exhibit 33A and 33B.
Does someone want to double check me on that?
MR. STEINFIELD: That's correct.
THE COMMISSIONER: Tab number 1 is a
redacted form from the Boston Plus Statement
of Accounts for W. Mitt Romney and Ann D.
Romney, 10/8/99 to 11/05/99, and the second
one is the Bank Boston, Boston Plus Statement
of Accounts, 1/08/00 to 2/07/00. Those are
at tabs 1and 2, and they're redacted
documents. We might mark those as Exhibit
34A and B for identification. 1 becomes 34A
and 2 becomes 34B, and these are being
offered by the Respondent.
(Whereupon, Exhibit No. 34A, Boston
Plus Statement of Accounts, 10/08/99 to
11/05/99, marked for identification.)
(Whereupon, Exhibit No. 34B, Bank
Boston, Boston Plus Statement of
Accounts, l/08/00 to 2/07/00, marked for
identification.)
Lee & Assocta.tes * certed court Reporters * ( 781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
29
THE COMMISSIONER: Then we have two
documents similar in nature from the Private
Client Account of Fleet Bank, Private Client
Group, again redacted document, one for
September 30th, 2000, eight pages in that
case, and then September 30th, 2001. We'll
mark those Exhibit 35A and 35B, being offered
by the Respondent. They were at tab 3 and 4
respectively.
(Whereupon, Exhibit No. 35A, Fleet
Bank Private Client Group statement
dated 9/30/00, marked for
identification.)
(Whereupon, Exhibit No. 35B, Fleet
Bank Private Client Group statement
dated 9/30/01, marked for
identification.)
THE COMMISSIONER: The remaining
document which was at tab 9 is a Goldman
Sachs office location document, multi-page.
That would become Exhibit 36. It's being
Lee & Associates * c e r t ~ e d court Reyorters * ( 781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Did I get the wrong document?
MS. TASSINARI: Yes, you were at
tab 8. Here you go.
30
THE COMMISSIONER: That is a Fleet
document which appears to be the reverse side
of two checks on the account of W. Mitt
Romney and Ann D. Romney, P.O. Box 81230,
Wellesley Hills. Actually, three checks in
that one. So, that would be at tab 9, and
that would be marked Exhibit 36, being three
checks, redacted, payable to Metrocast
Cablevision, Lyons Fuel, Belmont Municipal
Light Department. Exhibit 36 being offered
by the Respondent.
(Whereupon, Exhibit No. 36, copies
of 3 checks drawn on Fleet Bank to
Metrocast Cablevision, Belmont Municipal
Light Dept, and Lyons Fuel, marked for
identification.)
MR. MONTGOMERY: Now, if you will,
I'd like to do it again.
31
1 THE COMMISSIONER: All right.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Mr. Romney
1
am I correct that the utilities and
other expenses on your Belmont home were paid by
you while you were in Utah?
I'd say the great majority of expenses were paid
by me or by my wife and Becky Ames from our funds
for those features. Our children did pay for some
things
1
but the utilities bills, power, heat, and
so forth
1
were paid by us.
MR. MONTGOMERY: If there's no
objection from Mr. Steinfield, I would like
to put in as a group of what we have at
tabs 10 through 18, which are samples of
such bills and canceled checks paid from
Massachusetts on the Belmont home of
Mr. Romney.
THE COMMISSIONER: These bills in
question at item number 10, Lyons Fuel,
Boston Gas, Verizon, Keyspan, Town of Belmont
Municipal Light Department, another Lyons
Fuel, Keyspan, Verizon, and the Town of
Belmont Municipal Lights
MR. MONTGOMERY: My suggestion, Your
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Honor, if you don't mind, is just to mark
them as a single exhibit.
THE COMMISSIONER: It will be
Exhibit No. 37. Shall I just mark them as a
group without the A, B, C?
MR. MONTGOMERY: That's perfectly
acceptable to us.
32
MR. STEINFIELD: Sure, especially
since they have numbers at the bottom. So,
if anybody wants to, one can refer to them by
the number.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right, there
are nine bills testified to by the witness,
and they will be received in evidence without
objection as offered by the Respondent,
Exhibit No. 37, collectively.
(Whereupon, Exhibit No. 37, copies
of various paid invoices and canceled
checks, marked for identification.)
proceed.
MR. MONTGOMERY: May I proceed?
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, you may
Lee & Associates * c e r t ~ e d court R.e]iorters * (781) 848-9693
33
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Mr. Romney, did you consider at any time that you
were in Utah moving your bank accounts from
Massachusetts to Utah?
No.
Why not?
Well, Belmont was our home, that's where we
expected to be living long-term.
How about your investments maintained by Goldman
Sachs, did you consider moving those to Utah?
No, for the same reason.
Does Goldman Sachs have an office in Salt Lake
City?
I don't know. I presume so, but I don't know.
Did you ever explore the possibility of moving
your investments to Utah?
No.
Why not?
Well, I wasn't planning on living there long-term,
I was going to come back to our home in Belmont.
There was testimony yesterday that Mr. Steinfield
brought out that your home in Belmont is owned in
the name of your wife, Ann. Do you recall that?
I do.
Lee & ASsociates* c e r t ~ e d court Reyorters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
Q.
A.
34
How long has your Belmont home been in Ann's name?
The home on 171 Marsh Street, I believe, has been
in her name since we purchased it, which would be
probably ten years ago or so.
Mr. Romney, how about your other assets, are there
other assets that are owed by your wife?
I referred to our Goldman Sachs investment
accounts. By far, the largest portion of our
financial investments in our financial network is
in our Goldman Sachs account, and I indicated that
it's in her name. She owns the account. So, of
our real estate and financial assets, Ann owns the
substantial majority of those assets.
Why is that?
I think originally, we were perhaps misinformed
about the perils of joint tenancy in real estate
property in thinking about relating to inheritance
taxes and whatever, but that long ago gave way to
just more of a general feeling that Ann would feel
more comfortable if she had assets in her name.
So, when investments were made and I was able to
get a return on an investment or when I received
income from bank capital, those proceeds were put
into the account at Goldman Sachs in her name, and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
35
she could always just have the comfort of knowing
that she had a great majority of the financial
aspects of our partnership. After all, marriage
is a partnership. I realize that at death, things
go back and forth; but I think it gave her a
degree of confidence that she had those assets on
her own.
You said the Goldman Sachs account is in her name?
That's correct. There's an IRA in my name, there
is an IRA in her name; but the active investment
account, which is by far the largest account that
we have at Goldman Sachs, is in her name.
Does she receive the statements?
She does.
May I note as your pausing, she also owns the
home in New Hampshire and the home in Belmont. It
has been our intention for her to own the home in
Utah, as well, and we both thought she did. Only
through this process did we learn that we had made
an error in the way we had paid for the home
there, and the home ended up being in my name
instead of being in her name. That was not our
original intent. We were both surprised to learn
that.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
36
Thank you. There was some discussion yesterday of
charitable contributions, and one in particular.
Have you contributed regularly to the United Way?
We have, yes.
And did you do that while you were in
Massachusetts?
I did.
Do you understand what the de Tocqueville Society
is?
I do.
Could you explain to the panel what that society
is, to the extent they may not be familiar with
it?
I understand that the de Tocqueville designation
is made for people who contribute $10,000 or more
to the United Way.
Now, when you were in Utah with the Olympics, do
you know if you continued to be a member of the de
Tocqueville Society of the United Way of
Massachusetts Bay?
I believe, yes, I did continue to be designated as
a de Tocqueville member of United Way of
Massachusetts Bay, the reason being that the funds
we contributed, we directed to be sent to United
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
A.
Q.
37
Way of Massachusetts Bay.
Do you recall how it came about that you made a
United Way contribution through the Salt Lake City
organization?
Yes, a friend of mine there was the chairman of
United Way of Salt Lake City and asked if I would
make a contribution there, and I said I would, and
then I decided just to consolidate my contribution
to the United Way through that one contribution
and direct them, in turn, to send an appropriate
amount on to other charities. I don't have the
form in front of me. Yesterday, it was shown as
Exhibit whatever.
THE COMMISSIONER: Exhibit 23A and
24B.
23A and 23B. I would note that in 1999, of the
$13,000 contributed to United Way, $10,000 was
contributed to United Way of Massachusetts Bay for
further credit to Families First, a charity on
whose board my wife sits, and also to United Way
Faith in Action, a charity on which she is the
co-chairman. $2,000 was to Choice. This refers
to, as it says there, Belmont Mercy Home
Could you stop right there, Mr. Romney? Could you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
38
explain what the Belmont Mercy Home is?
Yes, the Belmont Mercy Home is an orphanage in
India, Madras, India. It is funded by a group of
families in Belmont, Massachusetts, and they have
adopted the name of the Belmont Mercy Home, and
that was what that $2,000 was. And then $1,000
was the Travelers Aid Society which is an
organization in Utah that cares for the homeless.
So, of the $13,000 contributed, 10,000 to
Massachusetts Bay United Way, 2,000 to the Belmont
Mercy Home. And in the next year the $18,000
contributed, 10,000 to United Way of Massachusetts
Bay, $4,000 to the Belmont Mercy Home, and the
balance to other charities.
Now, did you complete Exhibits 23A or 23B or did
you receive those as confirmations from the United
Way?
Yes, I did not type these. This was typed and
prepared by the United Way.
And sent to you, ~ n d you kept this in your
records?
That's correct.
So, the vast majority of your contributions in
Salt Lake City to the United Way were actually
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
directed to charities in Massachusetts.
That's correct.
39
offer a document which is not in your binder,
I just received it, and it is a listing of
de Tocqueville Society members in
Massachusetts for the 2000 campaign, and it
lists Mitt and Ann Romney.
May I hand this up so that you may
look at it?
THE COMMISSIONER: The document
is apparently from the United Way of
Massachusetts relating to the de Tocqueville
Society of that charitable organization, and
as indicated by Mr. Montgomery, it does refer
to Mitt and Ann Romney, U.S. Olympic
Committee. If there's no objection, I will
receive this in evidence and mark the same
as Exhibit 38, being offered by the
Respondent.
(Whereupon, Exhibit No. 38, Listing
of de Tocqueville Society members for
2000, marked for identification.)
Lee & Associates* c e r t ~ e d court Reyorters * (781) 848-9693
40
1 {BY MR. MONTGOMERY)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Mr. Romney, in addition to your contribution to
the United Way, you made other charitable
contributions on an annual basis; didn't you?
That's correct.
What is the Fidelity Investment Charitable
Foundation?
As I understand the Fidelity Investment Charitable
Fund, an individual may make a contribution to
this fund and then recommend to the fund making
further contributions to specific charities. That
is something which I have done, and over the years
have made recommendations to Fidelity to make
further donations to respective charities under my
name, and they have done so.
The Fidelity Investment Charitable Fund or
Foundation is in Boston?
Yes, it is.
Did you continue to maintain your account or
contribution to the foundation during the time
that you were in Utah?
I did, yes.
Did you receive statements from the fund while you
were in Utah?
Lee & Associates * C e r t ~ e d court Reyorters * (781) 84-8-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
We receive a statement upon making a donation or
making a recommendation for donation, and we
receive quarterly statements and an annual
statement from Fidelity.
41
I can't recall whether there was testimony on this
point yesterday or not, but am I correct that you
paid property taxes in Belmont while you were in
Utah?
That's correct.
And did you own a car or cars in Massachusetts
while you were away?
Yes.
Did you pay excise taxes?
Yes, we did.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Your Honor, I also
have a group of exhibits which reflect bills
and payments of property taxes and excise
taxes. I will not propose to go through the
exercise of marking each one, and if it's
acceptable to you and Mr. Steinfield, if we
could just package them up. I think they
make a very simple point that these tax
payments at the local level continue to be
made during the time that Mr. Romney was in
Lee & Associates * certtfted court Reyorters * ( 781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Utah. They are again in the binder that we
put together at 19 through 28.
42
THE COMMISSIONER: All right, the
documents in question which there's no
objection to receiving collectively and which
ultimately will be marked Exhibit 39 are a
group of bills, local bills, tax bills,
so-called. Tab 19 is the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Town of Belmont, real estate
tax, as is the second one at tab 20. The
third relates to the same type of tax, as
does the fourth at tab 22. Tab 23 relates to
an automobile excise tax in the amount of
$110. Number 24 relates to automobile tax in
the amount of $98.00. Number 25 relates to
automobile excise tax in the amount of $268.
Number 26 relates to an excise tax in the
amount of $155. 27 relates to an excise tax
in the amount of $105. The last one at tab
28 relates to an excise tax for $93.75.
If there's no objection, they will
be marked collectively as Exhibit 39, being
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
(Whereupon, Exhibit No. 39, various
excise tax and property tax invoices,
marked for identification.)
MR. MONTGOMERY: I just realized
looking at my notes that I neglected a
moment ago to put in another group of
documents. If you look at tabs 33 through
36, you'll see, I believe, quarterly or
annual statements from the Charitable Gift
Fund in Boston. I would like to have those
marked.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right,
43
34 is a redacted summary for quarterly
Charitable Gift Fund by Mr. and Mrs. Romney.
Tab 35 is a similar year and summary of
Charitable Gift Fund for year ending December
31st, 1999. The third one is a similar
document for the year ending December 31st,
2000. These three redacted items are
received in evidence, being tabs 34, 35, and
36, as Exhibit 40, being offered by the
Respondent.
1
2
3
4
(Whereupon, Exhibit No. 40,
Charitable Gift Fund statements, marked
for identification.)
44
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Mr. Romney prior to your acceptance of the Olympic
post in 1999, how did you handle obtaining
insurance for your home and for your cars and
things of that sort?
There is a local real estate agency in Belmont
that we went to. It's changed names a couple of
times, but basically, Ann, who manages our
insurance affairs, would call Jane at Provident
Insurance, I believe is the name, and
Provider?
Provider, thank you. Provider Insurance in
Belmont, and provide the specifics on what needed
insurance, and they would do the work, and Ann
continued to receive those documents.
I'd note that as I recall, the Provider
Insurance documents, Ann wanted to be coming to
her in Utah while she was there to make sure that
she could confirm what was happening.
I assume you have property insurance on your house
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
in Deer Valley?
That's correct.
Do you know how you secured that insurance?
Yes, Ann again went to Provider Insurance in
Belmont and asked them if they would secure the
insurance for our vacation horne in Utah.
Did you have a car in Utah?
45
We had more than one car. We had a child going to
college there and we had a family car and we had a
car that Ann purchased while she was there.
How was the insurance secured for those cars?
In both cases, Ann secured insurance through
Provider Insurance in Belmont.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I'd like to offer
three documents at tabs 5, 6, and 7, which
are documents from Provider Insurance,
and they are summaries of the status of
Mr. and Mrs. Romney's insurance during those
periods and placed through Provider Insurance
in Belmont, Mass.
I would like to say that I do
apologize for the amount of material that
we're putting in. I do want the Commission
to understand, however, this is a mere
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
fraction of the amount of material that, of
course, underlies Mr. Romney's life in this
community. So, we tried to pare this down,
and these are largely samples.
THE COMMISSIONER: I appreciate
that. I can assure you that the decision
is not going to be made on the weight of
the documents. We won't compare the
weight of your documents with that of
Mr. Steinfield's.
MR. MONTGOMERY: And I won't bring
in boxes and boxes.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right, we
have three documents here relating to a
Masterpiece premium summary renewal and
coverage summary renewal at tabs 5, 6, and
7. Those three will be marked as, I
believe, Exhibit 41, if there's no objection
thereto, being offered by the Respondent.
One of these relates to property in New
Hampshire, the second to the Belmont real
estate, and the third to the Belmont real
estate.
Lee & Associates* c e r t ~ e d court Re_porters * (781) 848-9693
46
1
2
3
4
5
Insurance Summary from Provider
Insurance Group, marked for
identification.)
47
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Mr. Romney, are you a member of any political
organizations in Belmont?
I am. I'm a member of the Republican Town
Committee of Belmont, having been elected to that
position, I believe, in 1994, and I have served
continuously as a member of the Belmont Town
Republican Committee since 1994 until the present
day.
And is your wife, Ann, also a member of the
Republican Town Committee?
She is, having served during the same times that I
served.
offer what I have marked at tabs 42, 43, and
44, which are Town Committee listings of
membership from the Town Clerk in Belmont for
the years 1993, 1996, and the year 2000 while
Mr. Romney was serving the Olympic cause in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Utah.
THE COMMISSIONER: 42, 43, and 44,
these appears to be copies of the listing of
the makeup of the Belmont Public and Town
Committee. I can't quite make out the year
and the date.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I can represent
to you that at least to the best of our
knowledge, 42 is 1993. On my copy, if you
look in the upper right-hand corner.
48
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that's the
one I was having trouble. That appears to be
1993, 1996, and the year 2000. On all three
of these, Mr. and Mrs. Romney appear to be
listed as members. That would become, if
there's no objection, Exhibit 42, being tabs
42, 43, and 44, being offered by the
Respondent.
(Whereupon, Exhibit No. 42, Belmont
Town Committee Listings for years 1993,
1996, and 2000, marked for
identification.}
49
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Mr. Romney, I'd like to move to another subject,
and I apologize to you for having to get into
this, but I'd like to talk to you about your
medical care while you were in Utah. Prior to
leaving for Utah, did you have a primary care
physician in Massachusetts?
Yes, I did.
Who was that?
Dr. Randall Gaz. He's affiliated with the
Massachusetts General Hospital and has his office
in the building adjacent to the MGH building.
TBE COMMISSIONER: How do you spell
that name?
TBE WITNESS: G-A-Z.
16 (BY MR. MONTGOMERY}
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
And how long have you been treated by Dr. Gaz?
I guess at least ten years, he served as my
primary care physician.
Do you know whether Dr. Gaz has in his possession
your medical records?
He has maintained my medical records since we
first began working with Dr. Gaz, since I first
began working with Dr. Gaz.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
50
Now, during the three years that you were in Utah,
what, if anything, did you do to secure a primary
care physician in Utah?
I visited doctors as necessary there for various
treatments, including an annual checkup, but I did
not secure a new primary care physician. Instead,
I continued to speak with Dr. Gaz.
Do you know whether your medical records compiled
by Dr. Gaz were to Utah while you were out
there?
They were not.
I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about
your wife, Ann. It's been reported that she has a
medical condition that you might discuss with the
Commission, and then I want to ask you about her
care during the time she was in Utah.
Yes, she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis
approximately a year before we went to, or I went
to Utah to run the games.
Did she have a physician in Boston who was
providing care to her prior to the time that you
took the Olympic position?
Yes, his name is Dr. Weiner, and he's at the
Brigham and Women's Hospital. He's affiliated
Lee & Associates * court Reyorters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
with that hospital.
Now, after February of 1999, did your wife, Ann,
to your knowledge, continue to be treated for her
condition?
She did.
Who provided that treatment?
51
Dr. Weiner oversaw the prescription of medication
and traditional course of treatment for her
condition.
Do you know if Ann ever made any effort to secure
another physician to treat her multiple sclerosis
condition while you were in Utah?
She did not seek any other, if you will,
traditional source of medical treatment. She did
receive, if you will, alternative medicine,
meaning massage and that type of therapy from
other providers, but her sole traditional doctor
was Dr. Weiner.
And her traditional medical records are here in
Boston with Dr. Weiner?
That's correct.
Remained here while you were in Utah?
That's correct.
You mentioned yesterday that you continued while
Lee & Associates * c e r t ~ e d court Re_porters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
you were in Utah to be a member of the Staples
board?
Yes.
That you continued to be a Corporator of the
Belmont Hill School?
Yes.
Now, while you were in Utah, were you asked to
join any boards?
52
Yes, there were a number of both businesses and
charitable organizations which asked me if I would
joint their board.
And how did you respond to the requests of
businesses that you join their board?
I told them that that would not be possible and I
would not accept that assignment.
How about charitable organizations?
I gave the same answer to the charitable
organizations there, that I could not join their
board, I was too occupied with what I was doing
with the Olympics. One exception was the Chamber
of Commerce. Its chairman asked me to join on an
ex officio basis, meaning I told him I couldn
1
t
join as a regular member; he said, "Would you
consider joining ex officio so that we could
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
53
coordinate our activities for the Olympics
1
and
having you occasionally attend meetings describing
how we could help would be useful." So
1
I did
join that board ex officio and attended
occasionally
1
as asked
1
to coordinate our
Olympic work.
How about your wife
1
Ann, is she a member of any
boards in Boston?
Yes, she is a member of the Board of the United
Way of Massachusetts Bay and she is a member of
1
she is the co-chairman of the Faith in Action
Committee of that board. She also serves
1
I
believe, as ex officio board member of a group
called Families First of Winchester
1
Massachusetts, I believe. She has served on those
boards for a number of years and served during my
Olympic time period on those boards.
Do you know whether Ann was asked to serve on any
boards in Utah?
She was.
Do you know how she responded to those requests?
She, likewise, indicated that she was maintaining
her board relationships in Massachusetts and she
would not be able to accept offers in Utah. She
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
54
also indicated we would be going back to
Massachusetts, most likely, and that wouldn't make
sense.
I would note that one of the boards that she
was asked to co-chair is really not so much
Utah's, it is Olympic. It's known as Olympic Aid.
She was asked to co-chair Olympic Aid which raises
money for children in refugee camps through the
Olympic movement, and she did so and was able to
raise money. So, that was a board that she added,
obviously associated with our Olympic assignment.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Can I have just a
moment?
MR. MONTGOMERY: I'm about to turn
to another subject if you were considering
the possibility of a break.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I was just
thinking about that.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I'll be glad to
continue forward, but --
THE COMMISSIONER: No, I think it's
a good point to break. Why don't we take a
so-called ten minute recess.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
55
(Whereupon, a short recess was then
taken.)
THE COMMISSIONER: We're back in
session. Again, we'll go until the 1 o'clock
luncheon break and come back. The afternoon
work, we're trying to figure out just where
we go, but I think we'll just wait and look
at our schedule. We're thinking that it
might be appropriate, if we don't have all
the documentation in, but it's expected in
tomorrow, we might commence tomorrow
afternoon at 1 o'clock to receive the final
documents if they are in route or have been
received and have final argument at that
point. This is all kind of tentative
16 depending on how far we get this afternoon
17 and what we know about the various documents
18 that are between here and Salt Lake.
19 So, why don't we just proceed now
20 with the continuation of Mr. Romney's
21 testimony by Mr. Montgomery.
:22 (BY MR. MONTGOMERY)
23
24
Q. Mr. Romney, I'm going to turn to the subject of
your tax returns that occupied so much of our time
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
yesterday. First, let me ask you, how long have
you been working with PriceWaterhouseCoopers as
your tax advisors?
56
You know, I don't recall when I began working with
PriceWaterhouseCoopers. It would be at least 10
years and probably more like 20.
Can you explain just generally, why did you hire
PriceWaterhouseCoopers to prepare your tax
returns?
Well, even though I went to law school, tax law
changes, it's complicated, and I wanted to have
some organization who would look at it very
carefully and assure that I was doing things
properly.
Is there a procedure that PriceWaterhouse
typically follows in providing to you their tax
returns that they prepare on your behalf? How
does that work?
I typically send them a large box of all of my
receipts from the year, and do that by the end of
the year, and they then gather that information,
prepare tax documents. I then receive in the mail
from them, generally only a day before they're
due, a series of documents which are the tax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
57
forms, and it comes in sort of two parts. One is
my copy which has a blue piece of paper on it
which has the instructions for what I'm to do with
each form, and then, of course, the copy, and then
it has another stack which are the actual forms
which I'm to sign and send in along with, they
provide envelopes, addressed envelopes as to where
they're to be sent. So, again, one stack which is
my copy with instructions as to what I'm to do;
the other, the forms that are actually to be
signed and sent.
Let's begin with your initial Utah return in 1999.
We heard testimony yesterday that you filed as a
part year resident of Utah?
That's correct.
What, if any, communications did you have with
PriceWaterhouseCoopers regarding this question
whether you were a resident for tax purposes of
Utah or a nonresident?
MR. STEINFIELD: Objection.
THE COMMISSIONER: What is the basis
of the objection?
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, this is
hearsay, and it is more than hearsay, it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
intrudes into an area where we have not been
permitted to receive in advance any such
information. He is now asking for these
conversations, it seems to me, classic
example of the kind of evidence that you
should not allow. PriceWaterhouseCoopers is
not subject to cross examination.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Well, I certainly
don't offer this testimony for the truth of
the statements that might have been made or
not been made. That would, of course,
violate the hearsay rule. It does not
violate the hearsay rule, however, to have
Mr. Romney testify as to whether any
statements were made, and if so, what is the
content of those statements that were made.
They were either made or they weren't made,
and Mr. Romney can testify to that fact. It
might be for others to make a determination
whether the statements that were made by
PriceWaterhouseCoopers, if they made any,
were actually accurate, but it is not that
purpose for which I ask these questions.
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, the argument
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
59
proves the point that I'm reluctantly making.
I don't want to impede this cross
examination.
THE COMMISSIONER: Certainly, it's
not been impeded.
Honor. The problem is that he wants to
create, essentially, a distinction without a
difference. You can't say, we want to
hear what they said, but we're not offering
it for the truth of what they said." You
couldn't do it, I submit, in a courtroom.
Now, I understand that this body is
not subject to the strict Rules of Evidence.
Nonetheless, the hearsay rule exists because
it is generally understood that hearsay
evidence not subject to cross examination is
not reliable, and reliability is your test.
So, reluctantly, I object.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Your Honor
{Commission conferring.)
THE COMMISSIONER: In talking with
the Commission, we've concurred that the
objection which has been made, we consider a
Lee & ASsociates * court Reyorters * ( 781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
valid one. The protective order and the
whole approach to this has been not to
allow the actual persons who are advising
Mr. Romney with regard to his taxes and
60
what instructions there might be, and
communication would be a back door entry into
an area that we have found to be not
appropriate to enter. So, I'm going to
sustain the objection.
Honor.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I assume that I'm
going to be permitted to ask Mr. Romney
whether he ever had a conversation --
THE COMMISSIONER: Oh, certainly,
yes.
MR. MONTGOMERY: - because
Mr. Romney, of course, is here to be cross
examined.
THE COMMISSIONER: That's fine,
but I think your other question was a lot
broader than that.
Honor.
61
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Now, in connection with your initial Utah tax
return in 1999, did you, Mr. Romney, communicate
any information to PriceWaterhouseCoopers that may
pertain to the question of whether you were a
resident or nonresident for tax purposes under
Utah law?
Yes.
And what was that?
I provided to them an estimate of the number of
days I had spent in Utah and in Massachusetts and
in other places, by month.
And other than that information, did you
communicate, yourself, anything else to
PriceWaterhouseCoopers regarding your residence or
nonresidence in Utah?
Jio.
Following that communication, did you receive the
tax returns under the procedure that you described
earlier?
Yes, I sometime later received tax returns which
have been provided as exhibits to the Commission.
Let me direct your attention to Exhibit 12,
MR. MONTGOMERY: If I may approach
1
2
the witness? This is my only copy.
62
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Is Exhibit 12 the cover page of the document that
you received?
Yes, it is.
In connection with your submission of Exhibit 12
to the State of Utah, did you review the taxpayer
instructions?
I did not.
Do you recall that the taxpayer instructions that
are available were marked as an exhibit yesterday,
as Exhibits 13 and 14?
I had not seen them until yesterday.
You mentioned a moment ago that you received some
instructions from PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Was
that a written instruction?
With my tax filings, I receive from them a one
page list of instructions as to what to do with
the form, and I did receive that with regard to
each filing which I have made.
Honor, in light of that testimony, you'll
recall that we asked for copies of all
Lee & A5scciates * certed court Reyorters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
63
transmittal letters in connection with tax
returns. That request was, as I recall,
denied by the Commission. However, now that
this has been brought up by Mr. Montgomery, I
ask that you rule that those transmittal
letters ought to be provided to us, and in
fact, ought to be provided during the lunch
break today.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Your Honor, the
document to which Mr. Romney has referred is
not a transmittal letter, it is an
instruction. I think the pertinent
instruction, and he's going to testify about
this later, relates to the Massachusetts
returns, and we are prepared to provide that
instruction sheet so the Commission can see
what it looks like.
THE COMMISSIONER: I had assumed it
was merely an instruction sheet from the
accountant telling the taxpayer on what line
to sign and what the tax is and put it in a
green envelope and mail it.
MR. STEINFIELD: Yes, and that
instruction sheet for these tax returns, it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
seems to me, ought to be provided to me. I
should have had it before now, I'd like to
have it.
THE COMMISSIONER: I suppose a
transmittal letter should be allowed.
64
MR. MONTGOMERY: I am prepared as to
the Massachusetts returns to supply it
because I have it. As to the Utah return,
I can check to see whether I have it. I have
absolutely no difficulty providing it to
Mr. Steinfield if I have it.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
While we are on the subject of the instruction,
what do you recall that you were instructed to do
by PriceWaterhouseCoopers for the Utah '99 part
year resident return?
To sign it and date it and to send it in. There
may have also been instruction about either
writing a check -- well, if there was not a
written check, then there would have been no
instruction about payment; but there could have
been a payment instruction, as well, I don't
recall.
Lee & ASsociates * certtfted court Reyorters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
Q.
A.
Q.
Does PriceWaterhouse send an envelope for you to
use?
Typically, they do send an envelope, yes.
65
Is there any practice that PriceWaterhouseCoopers
follows in terms of trying to direct your
attention to the portion of the form that you need
to pay attention to?
MR. STEINFIELD: Objection.
THE COMMISSIONER: I'll take the
answer de bene.
MR. STEINFIELD: It's not the
question of the practice. Apparently, we're
going to see these instruction returns. The
14 question was what is PriceWaterhouse's
15 practice.
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q. With respect to this particular return, Exhibit
No. 12, do you know whether PriceWaterhouse did
anything to direct your attention to any
particular lines of the return?
Honor, you've already sustained an objection,
and this is just another way --
THE COMMISSIONER: I think this is
Lee & Associates* certed court Reporters* (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
going to turn out to be just a little yellow
sticky saying "sign here." Am I correct?
66
MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes, Judge, you can
see it right here.
MR. STEINFIELD: I don't know, I
haven't seen the document. But, he's now
opened the door again to try and find out
what the communications were. We're going to
see these instructions --
THE COMMISSIONER: Actually, we had
testimony to that effect, as I recall,
yesterday. Mr. Romney testified that they
indicated the place where he should sign.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I think that
Mr. Steinfield is concerned about the breadth
of my question.
MR. STEINFIELD: That's right.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Let me make this
easier by simply asking him a leading
question, and that is:
Was it PriceWaterhouse's practice to put a tab
called "sign here" with an arrow which directed
your attention to the signature line?
Yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
67
Did they do that every place where they expected
you to sign?
In my entire experience with PriceWaterhouse, I do
not recall a single time they did not have an
arrow showing me where to sign.
Now, you said that you didn't review the Utah
taxpayer instructions that are publicly available.
Did you review the Utah Tax Code?
No.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Mr. Chairman, I
would like to have marked copies of the Utah
Tax Code, several portions, and the
Administrative Code of Regulations. They're
in my book at 47, 48, and 49.
THE COMMISSIONER: Why are you
offering those?
MR. MONTGOMERY: Actually, I do not
need to offer them as evidence, of course,
but it is a matter of foreign law. I do want
these items to be available to the
Commission, and I can make them available to
you on any basis that you like.
THE COMMISSIONER: And those are
again?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. MONTGOMERY: Tabs 47, 48, and
49, and of course, I certainly don't
insist on them being marked as evidentiary
exhibits.
we give them a number just so we don't
confuse it. Although, as you indicated, we
can take judicial notice.
68
All right, as far as tabs 47, 48,
and 49 are concerned, these are relevant
portions of the Utah Tax Code, Title 59,
Chapter 10, and they are being offered, as I
understand it, to the Commission so that they
may be judicially note what the law is for
Utah with respect to individual income tax
matters that might be relevant to these
proceedings. They will be received on that
basis, and they should be marked Exhibit 43,
I believe.
Portions of Utah Tax Code, marked for
identification.)
Lee & Associates * certed court Re_porters * ( 781) 848-9693
69
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Mr. Romney
1
turning to your 1999 Massachusetts
nonresident return
1
you recall that we had some
discussion yesterday about Exhibit 29. I want to
ask you the question whether you had any
communications with PriceWaterhouseCoopers
regarding the question whether you were a resident
or nonresident of Massachusetts for tax purposes
in 1999.
No
1
I did not.
Now
1
directing your attention to the second page
of Exhibit 29 -- I correct myself, I believe
that's the third page. Do you see the signature
line?
I do.
Did PriceWaterhouseCoopers attach one of these
"sign here" stickies to that return?
Yes, they did.
Did you receive any instructions, written
instructions of the sort that you described
earlier from PriceWaterhouse, regarding that
return?
Yes, I did.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I do have copies of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
(BY
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
70
the instruction redacted only to exclude some
financial information
1
and I would like to
hand them up to the Commission.
THE COMMISSIONER: I have here a one
page redacted document to William M. Romney
and Ann D. Romney entitled "Instructions for
Filing Form" and giving instructions with
respect to filing 1999 Mass. Nonresident/PY
Resident Income Tax Return. That has been
handed up now by Mr. Romney/ and if there
1
S
no objection/ I
1
ll receive that in evidence
and mark the same as Exhibit 44
1
being
Instructions for 1999 Massachusetts
Income Tax Return, marked for
identification.)
MR. MONTGOMERY)
Mr. Romney
1
what is Exhibit 44?
I
1
m sorry?
What is Exhibit 44?
This is a copy from my file of the instruction
Lee & ASsociates "' c e r t ~ e d court Reporters "' (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
71
sheet that was in front of my copy of the 1999
Massachusetts nonresident income tax return, and
it shows me what 1
1
m to do, which I then followed.
It says that you should sign the form?
That
1
S correct.
And date the form?
Yes.
And then it gives you instructions with respect to
what appears to be an overpayment?
That's correct.
And then tells you to file it; correct?
That
1
s right.
And gives you the address of the Massachusetts
Department of Revenue; correct?
That
1
S correct.
Did you receive any other instructions other than
Exhibit 44 with this return?
No.
Did you receive this return at the same time you
received the Utah return?
Yes.
And followed a similar set of instructions?
That's correct.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Much attention has
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
been paid, Your Honor, to the signed copies
of Mr. Romney's returns, and I would like to
put into the record what we have received
from the Department of Revenue, and on
72
Mr. Romney's behalf, would like to thank the
Department of Revenue for an extraordinary
expedition of the production these documents.
We do understand two or three weeks to be
usual
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, the Chair
and the members of the Commission thank the
Department, we appreciate the extra effort.
Have you had a chance to show it
to --
MR. STEINFIELD: Never seen it in my
life.
MR. MONTGOMERY: We just received
it, so no need for any drama. These are the
group of the returns from 1999, 2000, 2001.
THE COMMISSIONER: I have been
offered three pages, three last pages from
the Romney tax return in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. They were dated, the first
page appears to be dated 10/14/00, the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
second is dated 6/6/01, and the third seems
to be dated 10/12/01, apparently signed by
Mr. and Mrs. Romney, and that would
collectively become 45A, 45B, and 45C, being
(Whereupon, Exhibit No. 45A, 4SB,
4SC, Massachusetts Tax Returns for 1999,
2000 and 2001, marked for
identification.)
MR. MONTGOMERY: Your Honor, you
noted for the record that these documents
have been redacted to remove financial
information. I wish to represent to the
Commission that the line between 46 and 47
related to residence was not redacted and
that it was blank in the DOR files, and I
would ask Mr. Steinfield to accept that
representation.
MR. STEINFIELD: Absolutely. If
Mr. Montgomery so represents, I accept.
Mr. Steinfield.
Lee & ASsociates *certified court Re_Porters * (781) 848-9693
73
74
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Mr. Romney, directing your attention to Exhibit
45A, is that the signature page that corresponds
with Exhibit 29 which is the cover page of your
'99 return?
It appears to correspond with the Exhibit 29, page
three.
Now, directing your attention to the portion of
the form relating to your residence, you testified
yesterday that you did not fill that in.
That's correct.
That it was blank when you received it from
PriceWaterhouseCoopers.
Yes.
Can you tell me whether you read or noticed that
line when you received the return and entered your
signature?
I did not notice the line or dwell on that line in
any way when I received it.
When is the first time, Mr. Romney, that you
became aware that that line exists on the
Massachusetts form?
I became aware when Mr. Ginsburg raised it as part
of these proceedings, to ask for whether we had
Lee & ASsociates * certed court Reyorters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
75
redacted between line 46 and 47 the domicile
address, and at that point, I was made aware of it
for the first time.
May I note, also, the reason I knew that
PriceWaterhouse had not filled it in is that my
personal records showed me the copy of what
PriceWaterhouse had sent me, and they were blank,
those records were blank. That's why I knew
PriceWaterhouse had not filled it in. The reason
I was very confident I had not filled it in is
that I never recall in all the years I've worked
with PriceWaterhouse them ever telling me to go
fill in a line. The instructions are always sign
here, date it, write a check, and staple it on or
paper clip it on, and send it in. I'm not asked
by them to fill in other information.
Well, tell me, did you notice when you received
and signed the '99 return that PriceWaterhouse had
you filing as a part year nonresident of
Massachusetts?
Yes.
How did that strike you?
Struck me as being the logical way that I would
file.
1 Q.
2 A.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
76
Why was that?
Well, I had spent some time in each of two states,
my wife had spent some time in each of two states,
and we couldn't be a resident, at least it didn't
strike me we could be a resident of two states
the same time, and so it struck me as being the
normal way to file.
at
Now, when you filed as a nonresident in
Massachusetts in 1999 and 2000, did you expect to
save any money?
No. Not only did I not expect that my resident
status would save me any money, in fact, it did
not save me any money to so file.
Let me direct your attention back to the signature
line. Mr. Steinfield asked you if you had
noticed or were aware that when you sign your tax
return, you do so under the penalties of perjury.
Yes.
And you confirmed that you were aware of that;
correct?
That's correct.
Could you read for the Commission the remainder of
the line regarding the penalties of perjury?
"Signed here under penalties of perjury, I declare
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
77
to the best of my knowledge and belief this return
and enclosures are true, correct, and complete."
When you signed that return, was that statement
correct?
Absolutely.
So, you believe that you were properly filing this
return as a nonresident.
That's correct.
And PriceWaterhouseCoopers never told you in 1999
to do anything else; isn't that right?
That's correct.
Now, did it ever occur to you in 1999 or 2000 or
2001 that you made a mistake?
No.
When did it first come to your attention that you
did make a mistake?
I had a conversation with an individual --
MR. STEINFIELD: I think the
19 question is when.
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
When?
Sometime in 2001.
Now, Mr. Steinfield is not going to be happy if we
admit through your testimony any hearsay
Lee & ASsociates * certtfted court Reyorters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
78
information, and I'm not going to be happy if we
intrude on the attorney/client privilege, but I do
want to know the sequence of what happened. So,
did you, you were about to say that at some point
in time, you had some conversations; correct?
Correct.
When did those conversations occur?
The first conversation about resident/nonresident
filing occurred in 2001, and the first, the
discussion of that and discussion with attorneys
upon that occurred in March of 2002.
As a result of those conversations, did you do
anything?
Yes.
What was that?
We prepared an amended return for 1999 and 2000.
When you signed the amended return, there was the
same line on the bottom of that form as on your
original return that you were signing to the best
of your knowledge and belief; correct?
That's correct.
And when you filed the amended return, was that
undertaking on your part accurate?
That's correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
79
So that, when you filed the amended return, you
were doing so on the basis of the best information
you had available.
That's correct.
That a mistake had been made.
Yes.
Let's just go back for a minute to the Utah
return. You testified that you had given
PriceWaterhouseCoopers some information about the
number of days you spent in Utah.
Correct.
Just so this is clear, what was your general
understanding of the purpose for which you were
providing that information?
Well, I presumed that the taxes would be divided
between the states based upon the amount of time
I had spent between the different states
1
that
somehow that would relate to the tax filings that
they would prepare.
And you understood that for 1999, you had spent
more than half of the year in Utah.
Yes, I probably spent more than half the year in
Utah. Yes, I certainly spent more than half the
year in Utah. My wife was probably close to
Lee & ASsociates * certed court Reporters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
50/50.
You said yesterday that your wife, Ann, didn't
really come out to Utah until after your son
graduated from high school?
That's right.
And that was in late May or sometime in June?
Yes, although she made visits to me prior to that
time, as well.
MR. MONTGOMERY: May I have just a
moment?
80
12 (Off the record.)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Now, in connection with your Massachusetts
nonresident returns in 1999, did you take an
opportunity to read the filing instructions that
are generally made available by the Department of
Revenue?
No.
Did you review the Massachusetts Tax Code?
No.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Now, we've admitted
a copy of the instructions for the 1999
return. We would also like to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
THE COMMISSIONER: And 2000 for
Massachusetts.
MR. MONTGOMERY: And 2000, for the
record.
THE COMMISSIONER: Exhibit 33B is
2000 and 31B is 1999.
You're offering the document which
is the so-called instruction for filing form
for Mr. and Mrs. Romney for their 2000 Mass.
Nonresident/PY Resident Income Tax Return.
We'll mark this Exhibit 46, I believe, if
there's no objection thereto, being offered
by the Respondent. Exhibit 46.
2000 MA Income Tax Return, marked for
identification.)
81
21
22
23
24
Q. Mr. Romney, just very briefly, can you confirm
that Exhibit 46 is a copy of the instructions that
you received from PriceWaterhouseCoopers with
respect to your 2000 nonresident return for
Lee & Associates * certed court Reporters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Massachusetts?
Yes, it is.
I want to turn back just very briefly to the
subject of your designation and address from time
to time while you were in Utah. I believe you
testified yesterday and today that from time to
time, you would give Park City as your address?
Yes.
And on other occasions, you might provide Marsh
Street in Belmont as an address?
That's correct.
82
There is one other set of documents regarding
addresses that haven't yet been admitted, and I
would like to do that. You have recreational
registrations in the State of New Hampshire; don't
you?
Yes.
And those are for a boat?
It's for a boat and a Skidoo and a little
sailboat.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I'd like to direct
the Commission's attention, and Mr. Romney's
if we need to go there, to the documents that
I have marked as tabs 29 through 32. I
Lee & Associates * certified court Reporters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
propose to mark them as a single group, and
then just to ask Mr. Romney a couple
questions.
83
THE COMMISSIONER: These appear to
be New Hampshire registrations for a sailboat
and a motor boat, apparently, and the other
one is red, whatever it is. That must be the
Skidoo.
THE WITNESS: They're all red.
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, another
recreational vehicle, how's that? Those are
tabs 29 through 32, and they will be
collectively marked as Exhibit 47 if there's
no objection thereto, being offered by the
Respondent.
(Whereupon, Exhibit No. 47, Copies
of four New Hampshire recreational
vehicle registrations, marked for
identification.)
23
24
Q. Mr. Romney, I will show you these if it seems
necessary, but are you familiar with these
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
documents that we've marked as Exhibit 47?
Yes.
And these documents involve a standard annual
registration that you receive on these vehicles
from the New Hampshire authorities?
Yes.
And there is a line for, I believe it is your
legal or permanent addressi is that right?
That's right.
And some of these registrations contain your
Belmont addressi isn't that right?
That's correct.
And others are blank.
Yes.
Do you attach any particular significance to the
fact that these registrations from the State of
New Hampshire for the most part identify Belmont
as your permanent address?
No.
Why is that?
84
Well, you fill out addresses on things like this
for convenience of them being able to get
information to you at the place you need that
information. So, in filling these out, I wouldn't
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
have been thinking about legal domicile or things
of that nature, I was thinking about how can I be
reached for convenience.
Now that you mention domicile, Mr. Romney, do you
know the difference between residence and
domicile?
Not as well as you do, Mr. Montgomery, but I am
familiar with the concept of residence and
domicile, having endured civil procedure in 1971
and '72 in law school.
Now, I would like to turn to the subject of
statement that you have made from time to time
while you were in Utah.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I have a series
of newspaper articles, and I thought before
I began, Your Honor, that I could address
my desire to admit these newspaper articles
into the record. Now, I notice that
Mr. Steinfield didn't do that yesterday, he
just asked Mr. Romney questions with respect
to a line or two in some of the press
articles. So, I would like to know if
85
Mr. Steinfield has any objection to me simply
marking these --
Lee & Associates * certed court Reyorters * ( 781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
86
MR. STEINFIELD: Oh, I certainly do.
You'll recall that we chased after the
reporter with respect to the newspaper
article in order to obtain a sworn statement,
and I intentionally did not put the newspaper
articles in, I simply asked Mr. Romney to
confirm that he had said or not said what was
reported, and that seems to me to be the way
Mr. Montgomery can do it. But, to start
putting newspaper articles in as evidence for
the truth of what is in them seems to be,
with all respect to the press, not
appropriate.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Well, I agree a
hundred percent that these materials ought
not to go in this record for the truth of
what is in them.
THE COMMISSIONER: For what purpose
are you offering them?
MR. MONTGOMERY: Well, because I
think that the Commission ought to have
statements that are attributed to Mr. Romney
in context, and it is the articles that give
you that context. I think this Commission is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
87
perfectly capable of deciding what is
admissible evidence and what is not, but we
have already had considerable testimony and
now a deposition with respect to an article
which contains a statement which doesn't
include a quotation on the pertinent subject
that Mr. Steinfield pointed to at all. I
also think that it would expedite this entire
process if we could just get on with it, get
this material in the record. It's all
available on the Internet, there are no
secrets here.
MR. STEINFIELD: I press the
objection.
THE COMMISSIONER: I know there are
no secrets here, but we're concerned with our
record here.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I don't press this
issue strenuously. If Mr. Steinfield really
objects to this Commission having this
material available, then I'm not going to
press it. I understand his objection.
THE COMMISSIONER: I rather like the
way that he presented it in giving Mr. Romney
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
88
a chance to elaborate further on it.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I'm glad to do it
one at a time. I intended to go over some of
this, in any event, but it will simply take a
little more time.
THE COMMISSIONER: That's what we're
here for, to take all of the appropriate
evidence.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I understand that.
THE COMMISSIONER: We will recess
at 1, nevertheless, for lunch.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q. Now, Mr. Romney, there has been a lot of attention
paid to an article that appeared on April 11th
of 2000 in the Deseret News.
MR. MONTGOMERY: With the panel's
permission, I'd like to approach Mr. Romney
and run through some of this.
THE COMMISSIONER: Fine.
21
22
23
24
Q. Mr. Romney, let me show you a copy of the Deseret
News article from April 11, 2000. Now, do you see
the statement that, "Romney has declared his Deer
Valley home his primary residence for tax
Lee & ASsociates * cert*ed court Reyorters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
purposes"?
Yes.
Do you recall we had testimony about that
yesterday?
Yes.
You don't recall, as I remember, making any
particular statement along those lines to the
reporter?
89
No. I don't question her voracity in that regard,
but I don't recall the particular conversation in
question.
I don't believe we had testimony with respect to
the next sentence.
May I read above and below?
Please do.
"Although there's been speculation Romney would
remain in Utah after the Olympics --
MR. STEINFIELD: Excuse me. This is
exactly what I'm objecting to. I'm objecting
to putting the articles in and I'm objecting
to having him read the articles.
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think we
allowed yesterday for him to put the item in
the context of the article and go a little
1
2
3
4
5
further afield than the particular reference
that you were --
90
MR. STEINFIELD: You're quite right,
I withdraw the objection. You're absolutely
correct. I apologize.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Could you read the sentence both before and after
the reference to your residence?
"Although there's been speculation Romney would
remain in Utah after the Olympics and possibly run
for office here, Romney has said he intends to
return to Massachusetts where he maintains a home
in the Boston area. He voted there in the recent
presidential primary. But, Romney has declared
his Deer Valley home his primary residence for tax
purposes. He also hesitated to rule out a run for
political office in Utah, calling the question
about his intentions 'too speculative.'"
The one portion of this article that contains a
quotation, quotation marks, are what words?
"Too speculative."
And do you know whether you made such a statement
to this reporter?
I do not.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Did you make statements from time to time to
reporters who inquired, that your future plans
were speculative?
91
I did. Prior to the end of the Olympics, I made
it very clear that given my responsibility in the
Olympics, I did not feel it would be right, nor
was it something I could devote my time to, to
give serious consideration to what I'd be doing
after the Olympics, and therefore, I merely said
to people I would evaluate those options after the
games were over, but it was too speculative to
assess what I was going to do until the games were
complete.
Now, on the subject of primary residence, you
testified at some length on that subject
yesterday. I believe you testified that you never
filed any request with the Summitt County Tax
Assessor to receive that designation; is that
right?
That's correct.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I want to show you
a form which I'd like to have marked, Your
Honor, it's in my book as tab 46.
THE COMMISSIONER: Tab 46 is a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
single page, Summitt County, State of Utah,
Signed Statement of Primary Residence which
is in blank, and if I'm not mistaken, a copy
of it was included in the exhibits that the
Objectors originally filed.
MR. MONTGOMERY: That is true, but
not admitted in evidence.
92
THE COMMISSIONER: No, but it is the
same form.
MR. MONTGOMERY: It is the same
form. Indeed, I think I obtained a copy of
it from the Objectors' submission.
THE COMMISSIONER: This will be
received in evidence without objection and
marked Exhibit 48, that being offered by the
Respondent.
(Whereupon, Exhibit No. 48, Summitt
County Assessors Signed Statement of
Primary Residence, blank form, marked
for identification.)
23 (MR. MONTGOMERY)
24 Q. Mr. Romney, let me show you what's been marked as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Exhibit 48. Do you remember seeing this form
before?
No.
Let me represent to you that we understand it to
be the form that the Summitt County Assessor
requires in order to qualify for a primary
residence property tax discount or reduction.
You didn't submit such a form?
I certainly did not.
When did you first learn that such a statement or
form had to be submitted in order to qualify for
the primary residence treatment?
93
It was on the day in question of the Boston Globe
article relating to property tax filing in Summitt
County. I don't recall the exact date, but it was
in June, and I learned about the existence of such
forms and filing such forms after several hours of
discussions about the whole tax in Summitt County
issue. That was the first I'd heard of a written
form being required for establishing primary
residence in Summitt County.
MR. STEINFIELD: Excuse me. If it
helps at all, based upon all of the
representations and documents, the Objector
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
94
does not maintain and has never alleged
Mr. Romney signed this form, does not do so
now. Stipulate to that and move right along.
THE COMMISSIONER: And also, Exhibit
11 that you offered by the Deputy County
attorney who is Mr. Atkins, the County
attorney, indicated on page two, and this, I
believe is the form they're talking about
when they say no affidavit requesting and
asserting the factual predicate for primary
residence was ever filed in Summitt County.
I assume this goes to that form.
MR. STEINFIELD: That's right, and
I appreciate your pointing out that we
offered that. We're not trying to make
claims for which we don't have evidence, only
the ones for which we do have evidence.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I appreciate that
from Mr. Steinfield, but let me let the
Commission understands that this is a
critically important point for Mr. Romney
because it has been suggested, perhaps not by
Mr. Steinfield, but certainly by people that
he represents, that Mr. Romney was not
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
95
telling the truth when he said that he had
never requested the primary approved property
deduction on his tax return, and an
extraordinary amount of effort has been
expended by the folks at the Summitt County
office responding to inquiries from the press
as a result of allegations that he was not
telling the truth. Last night in the
deposition of Miss Kresser which you're
going to see when the transcript becomes
available, you will see that the record has
been created, that under her supervision,
and indeed, watchful eye, hundreds of files
of other taxpayers on either side of where
Mr. and Mrs. Romney's file is had been
reviewed and examined to see whether somehow
the document might have been misplaced, all
as a result of allegations that he's not
telling the truth.
So, I appreciate the concession, but
it is a very important point.
MR. STEINFIELD: If I may respond
just briefly.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
96
MR. STEINFIELD: We're trying the
case before this Commission. We have never,
ever alleged or suggested in any submission
or in any evidence that Mr. Romney signed
that form. Now, I can't speak for what
others may be saying in the public arena, but
I know and everyone should know that what
counts is the evidence here; what are the
allegations and what are the defenses.
Now, if he wants to take time
proving that which we're agreeing to,
I suppose I can't prevent it, but I want
the Commission to know what our position
is.
THE COMMISSIONER: No, I don't think
it's necessary we go further on it, but I
think it is an important point and it does
deserve a stop on the way to consider it, and
that's what's been done.
MR. MONTGOMERY: That's all I
intended to do, and perhaps wouldn't even
have gone there if the form hadn't been
attached to the submissions by the Objector a
week ago last Friday.
Lee & ASsociates * certified court Reyorters * (781) 848-9693
97
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Q.
A.
Q.
Turning to the subject of the statement,
Mr. Romney, that you made while you were in Utah
about your future plans, I take it that you got a
lot of questions over the three years that you
were there on this subject?
There was very frequent inquiry from both Boston
media, but in particular from Utah media, as well
as from friends and family and associates, as well
as my wife.
And, let me just direct your attention to another
article, this one, February 14, 2001, in the
Detroit Free Press, and specifically direct your
attention to a statement at the end of that
article --
MR. STEINFIELD: Excuse me, may I
do, Mr. Montgomery, what you did yesterday?
MR. MONTGOMERY: Absolutely, come
right up.
MR. STEINFIELD: I told
21 Mr. Montgomery this morning, Your Honor, that
22 now, I knew why he came up here yesterday.
24 Q. This article, Mr. Romney, contains a quotation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
near the end of the article, and I'd like to ask
you to read it, and then I want to ask you some
questions about the quotation.
98
Certainly. "I would love to run and serve in
public life, but I have to look at where I've
lived and what the political landscape looks like.
I will look in Massachusetts which has been our
home for 30 years to see what the gubernatorial
landscape looks like. I don't think I'll run
against Ted again, I don't think a white male
Mormon is going to beat a Kennedy in
Massachusetts, but I'll bet I could beat him in
Utah."
Now, Mr. Romney, do you actually recall making
that statement?
I don't.
Is it the kind of statement that you might have
made to a reporter?
Yes. It's the kind of thing that gets me in
trouble.
Now, let me show you another article from the
Boston Herald, February 22nd of 2001. I believe
that Mr. Steinfield may have shown you this
article yesterday, but I am not sure.
Lee & ASsociates * Certified court Reyorters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
99
Let me hand you this article which
Mr. Steinfield confirms was the subject of some
testimony yesterday, and I want you to direct your
attention to another portion of the article that I
don't believe was put in the record yesterday, and
that is near the bottom and is again a quotation
from you. Could you read that one?
'It's fair to say I'm giving virtually no
consideration currently to my plans after the
games,' said the 1994 Senate candidate. 'I'm
focused entirely on the games. It's a huge job,
I'm just enjoying it immensely.'"
Mr. Romney, how much time did this position with
the Salt Lake Organizing Committee take?
It was a six and a half day a week job which
encompassed 12 or more hours a day.
Is there any particular reason that you kept
telling the press that you weren't going to think
about your future plans, your next job, until
after the Olympics?
Well, that was the truth. I frankly didn't have
enough time to really devote any serious
consideration to what Ann and I would be doing
after the games, and so I would continuously say
Lee & ASsociates * certed court Reporters * ( 781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Q.
100
I'm not closing the door on anything, I'm not
pointing in any one directioni most likely, I'll
return to Massachusetts, but I will evaluate that
after the games are over.
I have another article I'd like to show you, but
my meticulous organization has failed me here and
I'm missing the first page, so I need just a
moment.
THE COMMISSIONER: Take your time.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I will skip to
11 another one.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
Q.
A.
Here's another article from July 4th, 2001. This
is an Associated Press article that may also have
been mentioned yesterday.
THE COMMISSIONER: What is the date
again, please?
MR. MONTGOMERY: July 4, 2001.
I'd like you to read the statements there which
include some quotation marks.
"'I have to be honest. I will survey the
political landscape in Massachusetts and in Utah,'
said Romney, who was quoted in a copyright story
in the Salt Lake Tribune. He said he is 'likely'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
to pursue public service after the Olympics."
Do you know if you made that statement to an AP
reporter?
Not precisely.
101
Did you make statements like that during the time
that you were in Utah?
Yes.
This particular article says that you're likely to
pursue public service after the Olympics. When
did you decide that public service would be your
goal after you got done with this job?
When I left my employer in Massachusetts in
February of 1999 to accept the Olympic assignment,
I left on the basis of a leave of absence,
indicating that I, by virtue of that title, would
return at the end of the Olympics to my employment
at Bank Capitol, but subsequently decided not to
do so and entered into a departure agreement with
my former partners. I use that in the colloquial
sense, not legal sense, but my former partners.
And upon completion of that agreement and that
understanding with them, it was at approximately
that time that Ann and I decided that we would
devote the time that I would spend in my career
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
going forward to public service of one kind or
another.
102
Let me show you yet another article. This one is
March 11th, 2001 from the Deseret News, and I
would direct your attention to the statement, if
you could read all of that. Here's a report on
either side of a quotation that you gave.
"Romney has never given up his Massachusetts
residency. His wife, Ann, lives most of the time
at their Belmont home, and he regularly flies back
for brief stays."
Let me stop you there. Was that statement by the
reporter precisely accurate?
No.
In what respect was it inaccurate?
Well, by this time, you said it was March of 2001?
By this time, Ann was living primarily in Utah,
and while she did go back to Massachusetts to be
with her grandchildren and visit the family a good
deal, I'd say that she was living primarily in
Utah and not in Massachusetts as this article
indicates.
Could you read the next statement which does
contain some quotations?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
"In that sense, it's a smart move. Romney's
political future best lies -- sorry, I missed a
line.
"Last October, he told Boston Magazine that
103
he plans to return to Massachusetts after the 2002
games. \I intend to return and I will carefully
study the political landscape,' he told reporter
John Keller. In that sense, it's a smart move."
I'll stop there.
Do you recall making such a statement to
Mr. Keller?
I don't precisely recall that conversation.
Might you have made such a statement to
Mr. Keller?
Yes.
THE COMMISSIONER: Maybe we ought to
call Mr. Keller.
MR. MONTGOMERY: He says he's not
19 ready.
21
22
23
24
Q. Now, a moment ago, you just mentioned your
grandchildren. You testified yesterday when you
left for your Olympic position, that you had a
grandchild. Were there developments in that
Lee & * court Reyorters * ( 781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
104
regard while you were gone?
Yes, there were additional births in our absence,
and my son, Matt, and his wife, Lori, had twins.
We, of course
1
came back for the birth of the
twins and spent some time helping care for them.
And then my son, Tag, and his wife, Jennifer,
also, approximately a year ago, gave birth to
their second child, and we helped with the
excitement surrounding that development, as well.
So
1
you have how many grandchildren now?
I now have four grandchildren.
Let me show you one more article, and it
1
S only
just to make absolutely clear on the record that
there was a mistake made, as you testified
yesterday/ in a press statement. This is August
21st, 2001 from the Salt Lake Tribune, and it
contains a statement similar to one that you were
asked about yesterday. This is not in quotations,
but I'd appreciate it if you would read it.
Most of his children and grandchildren still live
in Massachusetts/ he noted, but Utah's mountains
1
snow, and horseback riding country appeal to him
and his equestrian wife, Ann.n
Now, while you were in Utah, Mr. Romney, could you
Lee & ASsociates * certed court Reyorters * ( 78 1) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
105
tell the Commission what consideration you did
give to your future after the Olympics?
Occasionally, my wife and I would, at the end of
the day, talk about what we were going to do when
the Olympics were over, and we speculated amongst
ourselves as to the possibilities. I recognized,
of course, that there would be a number of
opportunities that might be presented, and we
never, however, felt that we had the time or the
energy to focus on what those opportunities might
be. We, of course, kept our roots in Boston and
kept our home in Belmont, anticipating that we
would return home at some point.
So, you anticipated the possibility that after the
Olympics were over, your next stop may or may not
be in Massachusetts.
Yes. Clearly, the most immediate time for making
a decision would be following the Olympics, and
most likely, we thought we would be returning to
Massachusetts immediately after the games; but we
recognized that another opportunity might prevent
our immediate return, and I would then accept
another assignment or opportunity and then return
after that.
Lee & Associates * certtfted court Reyorters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
You testified earlier that you understand the
difference between residence and domicile.
That's correct.
What consideration, if any, did you give to
changing your domicile from Massachusetts while
you were in Utah for three years?
That was a matter, actually, that Ann and I
discussed, and that was that
106
MR. STEINFIELD: Excuse me. You're
not asking him for conversation with his
wife; are you?
MR. MONTGOMERY: I am not, but he
was about to give us one. But, if you don't
want him to give it to us, that's fine.
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, you want to
know what he was considering.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I want to know what
he was considering.
THE WITNESS: It was important to me
to maintain the fact that Massachusetts was
my home, and that in designating where I was
from for purposes of the media and for the
purposes of my future, that Massachusetts
would continuously be known as the place of
Lee & ASsociates * certified court Reyorters * (781) 848-9693
107
1 my permanent home.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Mr. Romney, how do you feel about the challenge
that has been made by the Objector to your
eligibility to run or to be Governor of the
Commonwealth?
Well, it's fair to say that I realize that the
sport of politics is rough and tumble, and I have
no, I recognize that if you're going to get in the
kitchen, there's going to be heat. I think it's
unfortunate that this process can be used for a
political purpose, but I certainly respect the
appropriate nature of this Commission's
evaluation, respect their work and their time
devoted to this. I would note that I do not seek
any special favors or any breaks on the rules. I
expect the Commission to do exactly what I know it
will do, which is interpret the Constitution as it
has been interpreted by them and by their
predecessors and by the courts, and I expect no
special treatment. I expect and believe that I
qualify under the Constitution and under the
Constitution's provision for inhabitants exactly
as required.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
108
Let me ask you one other question. How do you
feel about the charge that has been made by some,
and at least the suggestion by others, that you're
not telling the truth?
Well, it really makes me feel sick, to tell you
the truth, because there's nothing more important
to me than my reputation for integrity. I
inherited a great reputation from my mother and
father, I plan on leaving one to my kids, and any
time politics gets into impugning in any way one's
reputation for integrity and honor and honesty, it
makes you feel just sick. But, I have to also say
that it makes me feel a heightened degree of
determination. There's an old family saw that
says, "If a Romney drowns, look upstream for the
body." I'm not planning on drowning, but I am
going to work upstream harder than ever.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Nothing further.
Mr. Montgomery.
This might be an appropriate time
for our luncheon recess, and then we'll have
Mr. Romney come back for further redirect.
Lee & Associates * certed court Reporters * ( 781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE COMMISSIONER: How long do
you think we'll need this afternoon for
109
Mr. Romney? Do you have any other witnesses?
MR. MONTGOMERY: We have no other
witnesses.
MR. STEINFIELD: I would expect
to have Mr. Romney on redirect between 30
minutes and an hour.
THE COMMISSIONER: Do we expect any
documents to come in on the pony express?
MR. MONTGOMERY: No, but we are
checking how quickly the pony express is
going to have these additional documents to
us.
MR. EBB: We know the answer in part
to that. We have a transcript of the
deposition of Barbara Kresser, the Summitt
County Assessor, last night. It is, after
looking at it, a very rough, dirty
transcript. It will certainly need one more
read by the court reporter before I think
Miss Kresser can review it for accuracy, but
I think we're very close to the point at
which we'll have a finalized deposition
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
110
transcript from Miss Kresser.
MR. STEINFIELD: That does raise a
point that has been raised, as we've all
read, in other proceedings, which is that the
witness has an opportunity to review the
transcript for accuracy, and I don't know
when that is going to be.
MR. EBB: I should know the answer
to that, Mr. Chairman. We reached an
agreement during the deposition that assuming
the transcript will be available to her today
or by tomorrow morning, that Miss Kresser
would review it for accuracy by close of
business Friday and would e-mail counsel for
both parties any changes she has.
MR. STEINFIELD: That's why I raise
the point. She has agreed to review it by
the close of business on Friday, and that's
fine with me. I need to review it in case
there are any objections. I would suggest,
Mr. Chairman, that these proceedings not be
delayed while we await that transcript, and
that it simply be filed by the close of
business on Friday, subject to rulings, if
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
111
there are any objections, and that we can
take care of the balance of our business this
afternoon, and if need be, tomorrow morning.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I thought, Your
Honor, you mentioned tomorrow afternoon.
THE COMMISSIONER: I said tomorrow
afternoon might work out better, particularly
if you do happen to receive something --
MR. MONTGOMERY: I would also like
to have a chance to read this transcript, and
I think your suggestion of coming back and
finishing up with our business and closing
arguments tomorrow afternoon is one that we
would favor.
THE COMMISSIONER: Why don't I think
in terms of that, and let me address the
Commission over lunch on that issue.
MR. STEINFIELD: That's fine,
whatever you decide is fine with me.
(Whereupon, the luncheon recess was
then taken.)
Lee & ASsociates * c e r t ~ e d cou.rt Re.Porters * ( 781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
112
A F T E R N 0 0 N S E S S I 0 N
2:00 p.m.
THE COMMISSIONER: Before we start
in, just to recap, our intention this
afternoon is to complete the testimony of
Mr. Romney, and then at that point adjourn,
unless there are other matters, documentary
matters. We will then recess until 1 o'clock
tomorrow.
Our only problem is a logistical one
at this point. We don't seem to have
guarantee of space here at 1 o'clock
precisely. So, through the good officers of
our staff, we're trying to get that matter
solved. We do have a fall back position in a
conference of a small size on the seventeenth
floor. Some of you who were here at our
earlier hearing last week might have been
there. So, that will be our fall-back
position.
That said, it is the desire of the
Commission to meet at 1 o'clock. If any of
these documents come in, you gentlemen can
then peruse them and see what you can do.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
113
MR. MONTGOMERY: With respect to the
schedule, I have checked with Mr. Romney, and
he does have other commitments for tomorrow,
and unless the Commission would like to have
him present, hewas not planning to be here,
though he certainly would like to be here,
but has made other commitments. So, we would
like to know your preference.
THE COMMISSIONER: No, as soon as
counsel feel that they've completed
testimony, he can be excused with our thanks
for his participation. And I'd add only in
the event that a document comes in that might
call for a future response would we find
another time.
All right, and with that, I think
Mr. Montgomery had completed his examination.
Mr. Steinfield, if you'd care to proceed, the
floor is yours.
R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I 0 N
23 (BY MR. STEINFIELD)
24 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Romney.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
114
Good afternoon/ Mr. Steinfield.
This morning
1
your counsel offered in evidence
some insurance documents/ and they were admitted
as Exhibit 41. I
1
m going to show you one of your
insurance documents/ if I may.
I am showing you a document produced in
discovery with the number 279 at the bottom. Do
you see that?
Yes.
Whose handwriting appears on that page?
Mine.
NOW
1
this is a document having to do with
insurance coverage on an automobile of yours; is
that true?
Correct.
And this has to do with insurance coverage at the
present timei is that right? Take a look at
the --
Yes
1
it is.
Do you see that
1
effective date?
Yes.
Now/ the notice that you received from the
insurance company indicated an increase in premium
of $223; right?
Lee & ASsociates * certified court Reyorters * ( 781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
115
Correct.
And that increase apparently had to do with where
the car is garaged.
You and I just made the same error. When I gave
this to my wife, she said, "Mitt, this was a
document to show a change of address. The car
garaging is a couple of pages in, and it continues
to be shown as garaged in Utah which is correct.
So, Mitt, your note to me is wrong.n
Well, you're absolutely right, we both made a
mistake; but my purpose in asking you this
question or this series of questions is somewhat
different.
Okay.
You were anxious; were you not, to be sure that
your insurance coverage was proper and in
compliance with law?
Yes.
And you knew that if a car was garaged in Utah,
that the law requires that the insurance coverage
so state; didn't you?
Yes.
And you made a mistake when you looked at this,
thinking that the insurer had made an error;
Lee & Associates * certed court Reyorters * (78I) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
.21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
116
right?
Correct.
And you wanted to correct that error; didn't you?
Yes.
So, you wrote to your wife, Ann, this year, ftcall
to tell that the car is still garaged in Utah."
Correct.
You were paying attention to the requirements of
law with respect to the insurance, and you wanted
to be sure it was right; didn't you?
Yes.
MR. STEINFIELD: I would offer that
document as the next exhibit.
THE COMMISSIONER: The last exhibit
before lunch appears to be 48 if I'm not
mistaken. This is an exhibit consisting of
three pages and will be Exhibit 49, and this
is being offered by the Objector without
objection. Exhibit 49.
Insurance Coverage Update, marked for
identification.)
117
1 (BY MR. STEINFIELD}
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Now, Mr. Romney, you testified this morning that
you didn't take any furniture with you or bedding
out to Utah; right?
Correct.
You already had furniture and bedding in Utah;
didn't you, in your Utah house?
We had some furniture and bedding in Utah, yes.
And similarly, you have furniture and bedding up
in your New Hampshire house; isn't that true?
Yes.
And with respect to clothing, you keep some
clothes up in your New Hampshire house; don't you?
Yes.
And you keep some clothes out in Utah; don't you?
Yes.
And you took out some additional clothes and left
some behind.
Yes.
Now, you also testified that you left behind some
pictures. As I understand it, the house wasn't
empty while you were gone, one or -- well, perhaps
you can tell us. One of your sons lived in the
house?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Yes.
With his wife?
Yes.
And your grandchild?
And a grandchild. They then moved out and a
different son moved in, then moved out and a
different son moved in.
The house was in use.
The house was in use, yes.
As I understand it, you paid the excise tax on a
couple of automobiles; right?
That's correct.
118
And your kids had the right to use those cars and
did use them.
They have their own automobiles/ but they could
certainly use mine if they wanted to.
Sure. So, the house bills are being paid in the
years 2000, 2001, because somebody is living in
the house and needs the heat. We covered this
yesterday, remember? And the excise bills are
paid, the cars are on the road. Fair enough?
Yes.
As far as pictures are concerned, there a!e some
pictures in Belmont, there are some pictures in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
New Hampshire, and there are some pictures in
Utah. Fair statement?
119
That's not quite accurate, in that the portraits
that were referred to are only in Belmont, and the
albums of our family photos are all in Belmont,
but there are some framed pictures for desks or
furniture that are in all three homes.
Now, we understand that you are a member of the
Board of Corporators of the Belmont Hill School.
How many meetings of the Board of Corporators of
the Belmont Hill School. did you attend in the year
2001?
None.
And we understand that you're a member of the
Republican Town Committee of the Town of Belmont.
Mr. Montgomery has put in those records. How many
meetings of the Republican Town Committee of the
Town of Belmont did you attend in the year 2001?
None.
And we understand that PriceWaterhouse has done
your accounting for as long as 20 years; right?
Correct.
You trust them.
Yes.
Lee & ASsociates * c e r t ~ e d . court Reyorters * ( 781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
You use them because they are skilled and
competent in their work; right?
That's correct.
120
They're one of the biggest accounting firms in the
world.
Yes, they are.
They know what they're doing.
Yes.
And each year, as I understand your testimony, at
the end of the year, you send them a box of
documents; right?
That's correct.
And they prepare your tax documents, you
testified, and they send you the tax documents,
I believe you said, a day before they are due.
That was your testimony.
Yes, one to three or four days, that's correct.
Now, I'm looking at the document that was produced
this morning from the Department of Revenue, and I
see that the first time you filed your 1999 return
was on October 16, some ten and a half months into
the year; right?
Right.
THE COMMISSIONER: Is that Exhibit
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
45A, B, and C?
MR. STEINFIELD: 45A, Your Honor.
So, it would appear to me that you took or
obtained extensions beyond the April 15 filing
date.
Correct.
And indeed, beyond the August filing date.
Yes.
121
And took ten and a half months, which you were
entitled to do, certainly, I'm not suggesting
otherwise, in order to file your tax return in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; right?
Yes.
And the reason it took that long wasn't that
PriceWaterhouse didn't have time to get around to
Mitt Romney; was it?
Correct.
It took that long because that's how long it took
to get it right; isn't that right?
Yes, they needed - I'd say this, there were
pieces of information still waiting to be
received. So, they had to have all the
information received before they could get a
complete return.
Lee & Associates * c e r t ~ e d cou.rt Reyorters * ( 781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
122
And then we now learn that the amendment for that
year was filed in June of 2001. That is the
amendment for 1999. So, now we are some 18 months
following the time that you sent your box of
documents; correct?
I believe so.
And the reason for an amendment is that someone
discovered that there was something on the return,
financial information, that needed to be fixed.
I presume so.
And so, and you had a perfect right to do this,
you amended your tax return in 2001 for 1999 in
order to make whatever adjustment was necessary;
right?
That's correct.
And again, the point is that over a period of 18
months, your skilled accountants at
PriceWaterhouse were getting it right. That's
what they're hired to do; isn't it?
Yes.
Now, we also have your nonresident return, Exhibit
45C, and that is dated October 15, 2001. So,
again, you said in your box of receipts that it
took PriceWaterhouse approximately ten and a half
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
months because extensions were obtained, and the
returns were signed by you in October; correct?
That's correct.
123
And again, that's not because. PriceWaterhouse
doesn't have time for you
1
it's because they want
to get it right; isn
1
t that right?
Well, they want to get all the information
necessary to complete the form.
Exactly. They want to get all the information
necessary to complete the form. Now, we've seen
today, instructions sheets. Does PriceWaterhouse
also send you a cover letter with the instruction
sheet and the tax return? Just yes or no.
Yes.
Doesn't that cover letter tell you, "Dear
Mr. Romney, here is your tax return, please
review it, make sure it's right and complete
before you sign it."
I haven't got a copy of that in front of me, so I
don't know exactly what that cover letter says.
In substance, you
1
ve been paying taxes for many
years, you
1
ve received letters from the tax
preparer, you know that that's the advice that
every tax preparer gives to the taxpayer when they
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
send the tax returns; don't you?
I don't know what's in that letter, but I don't
have any argument with the idea that --
It makes sense.
That makes sense, but I don't have a present
memory of what those cover letters say.
In fact, if I were to hand you an affidavit,
124
Mr. Romney, and at the end of it, I typed in your
signature, and above your signature, I put "signed
under the pains and penalties of perjury", and I
said, "Mr. Romney, sign this document", you'd read
it first; wouldn't you?
If you were to put it in front of me, yes.
Suppose Mr. Montgomery were to put it in front of
you. You'd read it before you signed it under the
pains and penalties of perjury; wouldn't you, sir?
Of course not.
So, you sign documents under the pains and
penalties of perjury without necessarily reading
them; is that your testimony?
I have not read the entire Massachusetts tax form,
nor the Federal tax form, nor the Utah tax form,
and all of them have me sign under pains of
penalty to the best of my knowledge and belief,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
and I do not read the entire form.
Well, the entire form has pages and pages and
pages of schedules; doesn't it?
Yes.
125
And you don't plow through all the pages; do you?
That's correct.
Of course not. But, you know, the first two or
three pages, a total of 46 lines just above the
signature, are you telling me that you don't read
those and review those before you sign them?
Absolutely not.
You do.
I do not read those and review those before I
sign, any more than the attached schedules. The
attached schedules and other lines are just as
important as the first three pages.
Well, then when you signed your tax returns three
times in Massachusetts, never mind Utah, and you
declared that to the best of your knowledge and
belief, this return and enclosures are true,
correct, and complete, you hadn't reviewed the
document; is that correct?
I had not read the document and all of its
attachments and had not read the first three
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
pages, that's correct.
You didn't read any of it.
I wouldn't say I hadn't read any of it, I
certainly knew I filed as a nonresident.
Well, then you read some of it.
That's correct.
126
You didn't read the section just above where you
signed and notice that it was blank, or actually,
you did, because you testified yesterday that you
remember not filling that in; didn't you?
No, that is not what I testified.
Didn't you testify yesterday that you did not fill
in the portion calling for your domicile?
That is correct.
And I asked you whether you had refreshed your
memory or whether you had seen some -- or whether
you were just testifying from memory, and you
said, "I'm testifying from memory."
That's correct.
So, is it fair to conclude, Mr. Romney, that you
knew that portion of the tax return called for the
information, and you recalled not putting it in?
Absolutely not.
So, if I understand you, you signed the return,
Lee & Associates* c e r t ~ e d court Reporters* (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
you certified that it was complete, didn't read
what was above your signature, and it wasn't
complete. Is that correct?
127
That line was empty, and in that respect, it was
not complete, and I looked at the signature on the
bottom of that page that says it's signed by
PriceWaterhouseCoopers where they say, they
likewise say to their best knowledge and under
pains of perjury that it's complete, and I look at
their signature and I trust their representation
and sign alongside it. I do peruse the document,
but I sign alongside it, and I did not see the
blank section calling for me to fill something
in, and I have never in my history with
PriceWaterhouse ever been asked to fill something
in other than my signature and date that I can
recall.
Of course, this was the first time that you were
filing in Massachusetts other than as a resident;
isn't that true?
I believe so.
So, there hadn't been any occasions before you
moved away to Utah for you to see or to sign this
particular form of tax return; am I correct?
Lee & ASsociates * c e r t ~ e d court Reporters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
128
Yes.
But, PriceWaterhouse employs accountants,
sophisticated lawyers, as well, for the purpose of
making determinations that are accurate; isn't
that right?
Yes.
And that's why you sign the return without reading
it, because you know that when PriceWaterhouse
says something, you can rely on it; don't you?
Well, I can rely on it a good deal more than my
own device.
Absolutely. And PriceWaterhouse sent to you a tax
return for you to sign for 1999 as a part year
resident; isn't that true?
Yes.
And PriceWaterhouse had you sign an amended return
for 1999 as a part year resident; isn't that true?
Yes.
And PriceWaterhouse had you sign for the year
2000, a nonresident tax return; isn't that true?
Yes.
And you say it never occurred to you that you had
made a mistake until sometime in the year 2001,
you said that this morning.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
129
Yes.
You didn't tell us when in 2001, so let me ask you
that question. When in 2001 did it first occur to
you that you had made a mistake? Just give me a
month, you don't have to give me a date.
I know the month, but it would be --
A season.
-- towards the very end of the year.
Fall?
The winter.
After the 21st of December?
I'm sorry, your definition of winter is different
than mine. I've been in Utah too long. You mean
the 21st of October or -- you mean December. It
would have been in the last two or three months.
Last two or three months of the year.
Correct.
Okay. It occurred to you, let's say in September
or October, maybe November, that you had made a
mistake; right?
No, it didn't occur to me, it was brought to my
attention.
Fine, and it took you something -- well, you
actually filed a new return, a resident return, on
Lee & ASsociates * court Reporters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
or about April 2 of this year; isn't that right?
That's correct.
130
So, it took you something between five or six or
seven months between the time somebody said, "Gee,
that's a mistake", and the time you actually
corrected the mistake; isn't that right?
No, no one said this is a mistake.
This might be a mistake.
Said it might be an area we have to look at.
Might be an area where you have to look, and so
you made a decision to run for governor and you
announced that decision in February; is that true,
or in March?
No, in -- I'm looking for someone to give me help
on the date. The announcement, I believe, was
late, very late March.
Okay, late March.
27th or something of March.
And it was after that announcement, in April, that
you corrected the return and claimed to have been
a resident; isn't that true?
It was filed in April. The work to get it ready
for filing was underway long --
Just stay with me. You filed the corrected return
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
A.
Q.
A.
after you announced that you were running for
governor.
Yes.
And not before.
That's correct.
MR. STEINFIELD: I have nothing
further.
Do you have anything?
131
MR. MONTGOMERY: One moment, please.
R E C R 0 S S E X A M I N A T I 0 N
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Mr. Romney, I believe that you were attempting to
complete an answer in response to a question from
Mr. Steinfield, and I don't think you got a
chance. I take it that the work that was
necessary to prepare your amended return had been
underway for some time prior to the filing;
correct?
That's correct.
And prior to your announcement; correct?
That's correct.
Lee & Associates * certed court Reyorters * ( 781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
132
Now, when you said yesterday that you were
confident that you had not entered an address in
the line somewhat or slightly above the signature
line of your '99 and 2000 Massachusetts returns,
why were you so confident of that?
Because I distinctly remember sending out my taxes
each year by signing my name, dating them, and
putting them in the envelopes. I have never in my
memory been requested to fill in any blanks or to
check any boxes or to write in the names of kids
or to write in an address. So, I was very
confident that I did not fill in some blank
portion of the form because I had not been
instructed to do so and I wouldn't have done it,
wouldn't have seen it.
One other question about your Utah return. Having
testified that you provided information to
PriceWaterhouse about the number of days that you
spent in Utah, did you have a general
understanding as to why PriceWaterhouse provided
you with a resident Utah return?
I presume the reason I was provided with a
resident return for Utah was that I had spent over
half the year in Utah, and that was what was
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
required for my filing.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Nothing further.
MR. STEINFIELD: Thank you, I have
nothing further.
133
THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thank
you, gentlemen. Does that complete our
submission for the afternoon?
MR. STEINFIELD: No, it does not.
If I may
THE COMMISSIONER: May Mr. Romney be
excused?
MR. STEINFIELD: Oh, certainly. I'm
sorry.
Mr. Romney, you may stand down.
MR. ROMNEY: Thank you.
MR. STEINFIELD: If I may at this
time, I would like to offer the affidavit of
Ms. Roche.
MR. MONTGOMERY: We have no
objection. Subject, of course, to the
comments that I made this morning.
MR. STEINFIELD: And without meaning
to extend the proceedings too long, once
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
134
you've had a chance to look at these, I would
like to read this affidavit into the record.
THE COMMISSIONER:- I think this is
going to be Exhibit 50; is it not?
COURT REPORTER: Yes.
THE COMMISSIONER: Exhibit 50, we
are going to designate the affidavit of Lisa
Riley Roche which was delivered to us from
the Third Judicial District Court of Salt
Lake County, State of Utah, which matter was
heard before the Honorable Ronald Nehring at
our request, and as I indicated, we're
grateful to the Justice and his court for
participating in our proceedings to clear up
one of the matters involved. The affidavit
of Lisa Roche is being offered and received
in evidence without any objection. It's been
offered by the Objector and will be marked as
Exhibit 50.
(Whereupon, Exhibit No. SO,
Affidavit of Lisa Roche, marked for
iden ti fica tion.}
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
135
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr. Steinfield
would like to read the affidavit into the
record which consists of basically two pages,
plus the verification, and you may go ahead.
Honor.
MR. MONTGOMERY: If Mr. Steinfield
is going to read the affidavit into the
record, I think I would like to read into
the record portions of the transcript that
we just received of the deposition of
Ms. Kresser. I think this is unnecessary.
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, let's just
take things one at a time here. Let's
proceed with the affidavit.
Honor. This is the affidavit of Lisa Riley
Roche.
"Lisa Riley Roche, being first duly
sworn, hereby deposes and states as follows:
State of Utah, County of Salt Lake.
1. I'm over the age of 21 and
competent to testify regarding the matters
set forth herein. My statements herein are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I'm a staff reporter for the
Deseret News.
136
3. I interviewed Mitt Romney on or
about April 11th, 2000.
4. During my interview of
Mr. Romney, he told me that he had declared
his Deer Valley home as his primary residence
for tax purposes. Mr. Romney told me he
hesitated to rule out a run for political
office in Utah, calling a question about his
political intentions, "too speculative."
5. I reported what Mr. Romney said
in an article published on April 11, 2000 in
the Deseret News (The Article).
6. The statement in the article
that, "Romney has declared his Deer Valley
home his primary residence for tax purposes",
is, to the best of my recollection, a
fair and accurate representation of what
Mr. Romney said to me during my interview
with him. The other statement that
Mr. Romney "hesitated to rule out a run for
political office in Utah", calling a question
Lee & Associates * C e r t ~ e d court Reporters * ( 781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
137
about his intentions speculative" is
also, to the best of my recollection, a fair
and accurate statement of what Mr. Romney
said to me.
7. I wrote another article in the
Deseret News that appeared in the June 7,
2002 edition. In that article, I reported
that the Democrat's challenge of Mr. Romney's
Massachusetts gubernatorial candidacy refers
to an April 11th, 2000 article in the Deseret
News that reported Mr. Romney had
his Deer Valley home his primary residence
for tax purposes." This statement accurately
reflects what was reported in the April 11,
2000 article which, in turn, accurately
reports what Mr. Romney said to me about
declaring his Deer Valley home his primary
residence for tax purposes.
8. At no time has Mr. Romney or
anyone on his behalf contacted me or, to the
best of my knowledge, anyone else at the
Deseret News, to claim that what I reported
about Mr. Romney's statements in the
April 11, 2000 article was inaccurate.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
138
Dated this 17th day of June, 2002.
Signed, Lisa Riley Roche." Followed by a
verification, "Subscribed and sworn to before
me this 17th day of June, 2002, Windy L.
Manning, Notary Public."
That completes the affidavit of Lisa
Riley Roche.
Are there any further matters
involving the affidavit?
MR. MONTGOMERY: No objection. Can
we mark this with a number?
THE COMMISSIONER: We gave it
Exhibit 50.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Thank you, Your
Honor. The only matter with respect to this
affidavit that I would like to clarify the
record, and I'm sure there's no dispute on
this, the affidavit, of course, puts in
quotation marks words that in the article
that's the subject of the affidavit, there
was no quotation. We don
1
t have the
article in evidence because, of course
1
Mr. Steinfield has objected to putting it in
ue & Associates * c e r t ~ e d court Re,Porters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
139
evidence. So, I would like his stipulation
that to the extent that there are quotation
marks here, those quotation marks do not
appear in the reporter's articles, in either
of the articles that she wrote, either in
April of 2000 or June, 2002.
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, the affidavit
is perfectly clear. Nothing in the affidavit
says that the statements were in quotes.
It's obvious from the face of the affidavit
that she is quoting from her own article, and
I don't think Mr. Montgomery's suggestion
advances the ball, nor that I need stipulate
to anything.
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think we
could, perhaps, receive it in not for the
truth of the matter, but just to compare the
quotes in the affidavit to quotes there, but
I don't think it's a point of that major
concern to the Commission.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I agree, it's not a
point of great moment, but I don't want it
understood that this reporter is quoting
Mr. Romney.
Lee & Nsocfates * certed court Reporters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE COMMISSIONER: No, we'll take
that into your account, your representation
on that.
ftToo speculative" has a triple
quote.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Very good pickup.
140
The Dtoo speculative" point was quoted in the
article, and Mr. Romney did testify to that
this morning.
THE COMMISSIONER: Triple quotes are
all right, but double quotes should be
approached with caution.
MR. MONTGOMERY: NOW
1
the last
thing/ I would like also to make a reading
for the record of a portion of Ms. Kresser's
deposition.
THE COMMISSIONER: We do have that
deposition, but it's not been verified or has
not been reviewed by her?
MR. MONTGOMERY: Well, the portion
I'm going to read to you is verified by
Mr. Ebb who was there and who took the
deposition. It is a point that is directly
relevant to what I assume Mr. Steinfield is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
141
trying to accomplish by putting in Ms. Riley
Roche's affidavit, and therefore, I suggest
it makes some sense to read this quotation
now. You're going to have it in the record
later, just like you have the affidavit.
But, since we're doing readings, I wouldn't
mind doing this one.
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, I would mind.
THE COMMISSIONER: Is there any
particular reason and factor of law?
MR. STEINFIELD: The reason is not
that I'm trying to be difficult or
argumentative, it's simply that I have not
seen it. I may very well, once I've had a
chance to look at it, say sure, go ahead. I
will not object to his reading into the
record or quoting from anything that you've
admitted, certainly, and you'll recall that
this was admitted and then I read it. So, my
suggestion is that if I could just have a
look at it tonight, then tomorrow, he can
read it.
THE COMMISSIONER: Why don't we
make it the first order of business tomorrow
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
142
at 1 o'clock in whatever room we seem t ~ find
ourselves.
MR. MONTGOMERY: That's fine. That
will give me time to practice my reading.
THE COMMISSIONER: Very good.
All right, gentlemen, anything else
you wish to present at this time?
MR. STEINFIELD: No, thank you,
we'll see you at 1 o'clock.
THE COMMISSIONER: So, it's my
understanding we'll finish with this item
we do have copies of the withdrawal of the
objection of Mr. Tierney. So, his case will
be deemed closed, although we allowed his
question and answer made earlier to stand.
In the case of Mr. Ginsburg, I think
you gentlemen will have copies of his letter
of 6/18, and I will take that as his final
statement and will regard his case closed.
MR. STEINFIELD: Yes, I do have one
housekeeping matter. As I understand it,
tomorrow, after Mr. Montgomery has had a
chance to practice reading, he's going to do
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
some reading
MR. MONTGOMERY: I'm going to do
that tonight, practice tonight.
143
MR. STEINFIELD: And then we're
going to have closing arguments, and I don't
know whether the Commission has a time limit
or whether you want counsel to suggest one or
just how you would like us to plan that.
THE COMMISSIONER: On the length of
the argument?
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think
that we've paid a good deal of attention to
the information going in, so I think a brief
summary of the salient points would be
helpful, but we do not need an extraordinary
expedition or oratory, put it that way.
MR. STEINFIELD: I'm sure that's
true, and we'll both, no doubt, violate that
instruction, but perhaps 30 minutes for each
side would be appropriate?
THE COMMISSIONER: That would be
appropriate, yes. And the other question is
are you going to need time to do a brief and
Lee & ASsociates * c e r t ~ e d court Reyorters * (781) 84B-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
144
file a memorandum or whatever it may be?
MR. STEINFIELD: Sure, and I think
we would both like to have the transcript in
order to refer you to sections of the record.
I've spoken with the reporter who thought
possibly, she could do today's by Thursday.
I don't know about yesterday's reporter. If
we could have until Monday of next week,
Mr. and I would appreciate that,
but we'll defer to your wishes.
THE COMMISSIONER: Can we do it
Monday morning?
THE COMMISSIONER: We plan to meet
on Monday, so that would be very helpful to
have those.
MR. STEINFIELD: 10 o'clock, Monday
morning, would that be okay?
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, and
we'll recess until 1 o'clock tomorrow
afternoon. Thank you for your presentations.
(Whereupon, the hearing was
adjourned at 2:40p.m.)
145
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, SUSAN K. ARVIDSON, a Certified
Court Reporter and Notary Public within and
for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, do
hereby certify that the foregoing record,
Pages 1 through 144 is a true and accurate
transcription of a hearing before the Ballot
Law Commission, to the best of my skill and
ability.
March 4, 2005
PLEASE NOTE: THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATION OF
TRANSCRIPT DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY REPRODUCTION OF
THE SAME BY ANY MEANS UNLESS UNDER THE DIRECT
CONTROL AND/OR DIRECTION OF THE CERTIFYING
REPORTER.
Lee & Associates * court Reyorters * (781) 848-9693
Volume: III
Pages: 1-54
Exhibits: 2
SUFFOLK, ss STATE BALLOT LAW COMMISSION
SUSAN THOMPSON, )
AARON I. GINSBURG,)
THOMAS P. TIERNEY,)
Objectors, )
)
VS. ) Docket Nos. 02-05; 02-06; 02-07
)
MITT ROMNEY, )
Respondent. )
Before:
Held at:
Taken on:
HEARING CONFERENCE
One Ashburton Place
2Pt Floor
Wednesday June 19, 2002
THE COMMISSIONERS
Mary Sullivan Kelly
Paul F. X. Powers
Matthew Kane
John F. St. Cyr
Michelle Tassinari
Paul Lazour
Hill & Barlow
COUNSEL FOR: Susan Thompson, Objector
Hill & Barlow
COUNSEL for: Susan Thompson, Objector
Hill & Barlow
COUNSEL For: Susan Thompson, Objector
Ropes & Gray
Ropes & Gray
COUNSEL For: Mr. Romney, The Respondent
Lee & Associates * Certifieo Court Reporters * (781) 848-9693
2
No.
SlA
SlB
I N D E X
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
There was no testimony from witnesses.
E X H I B I T S
1999 Massachusetts Income Tax Return
2000 Resident Income Tax Return
Lee & Associates * C e r t i ~ e o court Reporters * (781) 848-9693
3
Page
6
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
4
Wednesday, June 19, 2002
1:05 p.m.
THE COMMISSION: Our first order of
business, I see we have a new stenographer
and I will ask that she rise and raise her
right hand.
Whereupon Jo-Anne M. Golden was duly
sworn as the court reporter.
THE COMMISSION: I don't remember any
of my oaths of this kind. Yes, Joe.
MR. STEINFIELD: Good afternoon, Mr.
Chairman and members of the Commission.
Before resting for the Objector, I have one
last piece of business that I would like to
conduct. Specifically, I would like to hand
up to the Commission, two documents. One is
the blank form taken off the internet of the
1999 Massachusetts Resident Income Tax
Return. The second is the blank form of the
year 2000 Resident Income Tax Return. And I
ask that those be admitted as exhibits 51 and
52.
THE COMMISSION: Well, this is a
Lee & Associates C e r t i f i e ~ Court Reporters* (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
slight re-opening for that purpose.
MR. STEINFIELD: Pardon me.
THE COMMISSION: This is a slight
re-opening for that purpose, you actually
rested yesterday.
MR. STEINFIELD: If I rested --
THE COMMISSION: Subject to the
MR. STEINFIELD: I apologize, but
may I ask the Commission's indulgence that--
And request of course these are documents
of which you could take judicial notice, but
I thinks it's appropriate that they be
marked.
THE COMMISSION: Do you have any?
THE COMMISSION: I assume in that
case, the Commission so agrees. The form of
the Massachusetts for 1999 would be received
in evidence without objection and that would
take us, I believe to Exhibit 50; is that
MR. STEINFIELD: I believe that's
51. I think the Lisa Roche Affidavit is
Exhibit 50.
THE COMMISSION: Oh, that's right.
Lee & Associates court Reporters (781) 848-9693
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Yes, that is correct. I overlooked that.
Exhibit 51A and the corresponding form for
the year 2000 Massachusetts Resident Income
Tax Return will be marked as Exhibit 51B,
being offered by the Objector and received in
evidence without objection.
(Whereupon the year 1999 and year
2000 Massachusetts Resident Income Tax
Return forms were marked as Exhibit
No.'s 51A and 51B respectively.)
much.
THE COMMISSION: All right then.
MR. STEINFIELD: Thank you very
THE COMMISSION: We had one other
matter, I believe, on the other Utah witness.
MR. MONTGOMERY: We had discussed
yesterday the status of the Utah witness
transcript and we now have what we believe to
be a final transcript from the reporter that
just arrived and is still subject to the
review and signing of the witness. I have
discussed this matter with Mr. Steinfield and
we've agreed that there is a portion of the
transcript that I would like to read today,
Lee & Associates Certifieo Court Reporters* (781) 848-9693
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
but I will do that during my
THECOMMISSION: Is it a very long
transcript?
MR. EBB: I t ~ s about 82 pages.
THE COMMISSION: On this one narrow
point?
MR. MONTGOMERY: Oh, no. On the
narrow point, just a couple of pages. I'm
going to do that during my closing.
THE COMMISSION: All right. Is that
in agreement?
MR. STEINFIELD: That's fine with
me. The entire transcript, as I understand
it, is going to be offered once it has been
received and I will review it, let you know
if there's any portion of that to which
THE COMMISSION: Wasn't that your
homework assignment last night?
MR. STEINFIELD: Well actually, Your
Honor --
THE COMMISSION: Or did I
misunderstand?
MR. STEINFIELD: I do not -- and I
have reviewed this very rough draft, and I
Lee & Associates * Certifieo Court Reporters * (78r) 848-9693
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
have no current problem, but the truth is I
spent a little time last night preparing my
closing remarks. It hasn't been offered yet.
We will notify Mr. Montgomery if there is any
problem with any part of that transcript.
THE COMMISSION: Because we want to
be able to start our deliberation and
preparation of our decision. So, we can't
don't want to be left kind of hanging by our
thumbs.
MR. STEINFIELD: Well, may I make
the suggestion. I am more than glad if there
is anything to which we object, that you as
Mr. Chairman or the members of the Commission
look at it and rule without argument simply
by examining the transcript that he has
submitted. In other words, I'm not
suggesting that you reconvene or hear
argument.
THE COMMISSION: All right.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Would you have any
objection, Mr. Steinfield, if we filed a copy
of the transcript tomorrow or this afternoon
subject to whatever corrections Ms. Kresser
Lee & Associates * Certified Court Reporters * (78r) 848-9693
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
might have to make by Friday and if there are
corrections, we will submit those on Friday.
THE COMMISSION: That would be a
good way to do it, yes.
MR. STEINFIELD: Sounds fine to me.
THE COMMISSION: Why don't you try
and submit it this afternoon sometime. So,
have we cleaned up all the other matters and
with that exception of that document both
parties are rested?
MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes, sir.
THE COMMISSION: All right then we
will now proceed with the argument. I guess
under our ground rules that you would be the
lead off batter here.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Thank you, Your
Honor. I want to begin by thanking the
Commission as well as the representatives of
the Secretary of State's office and the
Attorney General's office for their time,
their patience and for the application of a
steady hand during the course of these
proceedings. As you well know, the stakes
here are high. You have before you the
Lee & Associates* CertiHeo Court Reporters (781) 848-9693
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
10
interests of Mr. Romney as a candidate for
Governor of the Commonwealth. And at the
same time you have before you the rights of
the voter's of the Commonwealth to choose
candidates of their choice. And you have
before you in this particular case, the
question or at least the consequence whether
we are going to have a functioning two party
system in the Commonwealth in the fall
election for Governor. We are confident, as
Mr. Romney said yesterday, that you will
apply yourselves to this weighty task
understanding the enormity of the
consequences that are at play. Now, this
challenge by the Democratic Party is prompted
of course, by a decision that Mr. Romney made
to spend three years in the State of Utah
serving the United States Olympic cause. His
decision in that regard evokes a statement
made by Alexis De Toqueville, which I would
like to point out to you because it actually
happens to be in the record in an Exhibit
that was marked yesterday. More than 150
years ago Mr. De Toqueville observed that,
Lee & Associates C e r t i f i e ~ Court Reporters (781} 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
11
"When an American asks for the cooperation of
his fellow citizens it is seldom refused and
that I have often seen that afforded
spontaneously and with great good will."
The Salt Lake organizing committee and
indeed, the country asked for Mr. Romney's
cooperation in 1999 and he afforded it,
spontaneously with great good will, and as we
now know, with great success for the entire
country. I think Alexis De Toqueville, just
like John Adams, would have been surprised to
learn the suggestion by the Democratic Party
that the price of public service would be
disqualification from office. Clearly the
law does not elicit any such price. Speaking
of Mr. Adams, it is true of course that after
he drafted our Constitution in 1779, he never
did run for or serve as Governor of the
Commonwealth, but he did spend another 22
years in government service almost
continuously in residence somewhere other
than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
though no one could doubt that his domicile
was at his farm in Quincy. Now, Mr. Adams'
Lee & Associates * C e r t i f i e ~ Court Reporters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
. 23
24
12
example, which has been chronicled so well in
Mr. McCollough's book, spawned generations of
our citizens who have followed his example,
served the public interest outside of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and many of
them have returned to serve as Governor.
I would just like to direct your
attention to the board that we prepared over
here on the left and your right and we will
supply more information in our briefs that we
file on Monday. But I just point out to you
Levi Lincoln, Lieutenant Governor, 1807;
Curtis Gill, Governor, 1905; Christopher
Gore, Governor, 1809; Christian Herter,
Governor, 1953, Foster Furcolo, Governor,
1956; John Volpe, Governor, 1961; William
Weld, Governor, 1991. What binds all of
these successors of John Adams is that they
each served the public outside of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, resided
outside of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
within seven years next proceeding their
election as Governor of Massachusetts .
Now, the Democratic Party would have
Lee & Associates * C e r t i H e ~ Court Reporters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
13
you believe that this is a case of first
impression. The key factors that are at play
in this case it would appear, are we have a
candidate who spent three years in public
service outside of Massachusetts, but who
continued his voter registration in
Massachusetts, who maintained bank accounts
in Massachusetts, who continued activity with
Massachusetts charities, but who filed
resident tax returns outside of Massachusetts
and who relied on tax professionals when he
did so. A matter of first impression? No.
These are the factors and precisely the
factors that this Commission considered in
Hastie vs. Stebbins in 1991 when the
Commission held that Mr. Stebbins, who had
moved to Virginia for a number of years,
three years to be precise, to provide public
service, who returned to Massachusetts to run
for office, was entitled to do so because on
just those factors and those factors alone,
you concluded that he was domiciled in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Now, Hastie
vs. Stebbins highlights the point that we
Lee & Associates * C e r t i ~ e ~ Court Reporters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
14
made repeatedly in these proceedings and that
is that there is a significant difference
between your temporary residence outside of
the Commonwealth for a public or business
purpose on the one hand; and on the other, a
change of domicile from a place which
continues to be the center of one's civic
life, personal life and social life and one
who continues to vote. As I pointed out in
my opening, there is a presumption that once
a person establishes a domicile that that
domicile continues. And for a domicile to
change there must be both physical presence
in the new place and an intent to remain at
that new residence indefinitely. So, what
has the evidence shown about the center of
Mr. Romney's life? Now
1
we have given you a
detailed and very personal recitation of Mr.
Romney's deep connection to the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts. As the Commission knows,
it is in such details that one finds the
heart of the intent which comprises the
matter of domicile.
Let me just summarize the evidence
Lee & Associates C e r t i ~ e o Court Reporters (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
that has been presented to you. We start
with the undisputed proposition that Mr.
Romney has spent 30 years of his life in
Massachusetts, raising his children in
Massachusetts, running for public office in
Massachusetts. And he was surely, I don't
15
think there's any dispute about this,
domiciled in Massachusetts as of early
February of 1999. Then what happened? Mr.
Romney accepted a temporary position for a
fixed and definite term in Salt Lake City,
Utah serving the Olympics. He undertook his
duties for six and a half days a week and he
maintained his home here, he supported that
home, he left behind all of his personal
effects and his personal papers and his
children and his grandchildren. He continued
to serve on the board of a Massachusetts
corporation, continued to return here for
board meetings and to hold other positions in
Massachusetts which did not require his time,
of which he had precious little, including
continuing to serve as a corporator of the
Belmont Hill School where his children had
Lee & Associates C e r t i ~ e ~ Court Reporters (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
16
all attended and where he of course, as he
testified, returned in May or June of 1999 to
deliver an address at his last son's
graduation. He continued to be a member of
the Republican Town Committee. He continued
to maintain his bank accounts in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and most of the
transactions which he had through his
checking account, with the exception of a
small account in Utah, took place here. He
never considered transferring his bank
accounts to Utah. He had all of his
investments here and he never considered
transferring his investments to Utah. Mr.
Romney and his wife both have, as we all do,
needs for medical care. Mr. Romney
maintained his primary care physician in here
in Massachusetts. His medical records stayed
here and his wife was treated from
Massachusetts herself, and her medical
records stayed here. And finally, he was
registered to vote in Massachusetts during
the entire time that he was away as he has
been since the 1970's, and he exercised that
Lee & Associates Certifieo Court Reporters (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
franchise in Massachusetts while he was
residing in Utah. There cannot be anymore
affirmative or public statement of domicile
by any person than where they vote and where
they are qualified to vote.
So, what is left in Utah after Mr.
17
Romney returns to Massachusetts? Well, there
is certainly the vacation home which he
purchased in 1997 or so. There is a former
place of employment which is currently
winding down it's operations. And there are
memories of an exhaustive, but successful
triumph for our country, but little else.
Nothing happened to Mr. Romney in Utah when
Mr. Romney was there to alter the center of
his life. He told you yesterday that while
he was in Utah he was offered P?Sitions on
corporate boards and on charitable boards and
he declined, and so did his wife Ann. Hardly
the decisions you would expect of a husband
and a wife who were intending to relocate the
center of their life to Utah.
There was a constant press buzz
around Mr. Romney as to what his future plans
Lee & Associates C e r t i f i e ~ Court Reporters (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
18
might be and as to whether he might run for
office in Utah. But he told you, and you
heard quotations from the press -- He told
you that he politely and diplomatically told
the press that any such future office was
entirely too speculative. That was polite
and diplomatic. What he also told you was he
never got even close to seriously considering
ever running for office in the State of Utah.
He just didn't consider it. Now, other than
what I just told you, there is nothing else
in Utah that is reflective of this man's life
because the center of that life is here.
So, what is it that the Democratic
Party has proved? Well, they certainly have
proved some things here. They have proved
that Mitt Romney when he intended -- when he
left Massachusetts, intended to stay away
except for visits to his family and some
business commitments, for three years. They
proved that while he was there he was fully
occupied six and a half days a week on the
Olympics. And they have proved that the only
residence that he was continuously using and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
19
residing in during those three years was in
Utah. The second thing they have proved is
that Mr. Romney's wife, Ann owns their
Belmont home, a point which was emphasized on
the six o'clock news on every single channel
in Boston on Monday evening. A fact that is
entirely irrelevant to the question of where
this man's center is. And frankly an insult
to every husband and wife in the
Commonwealth, who like the Romneys, believe
that marriage is a partnership in which they
can allocate financial resources between them
anyway they choose. Finally, the Democratic
Party has proved that Mr. Romney, like many
of us, does not thoroughly understand the tax
code, does not thoroughly review his tax
returns, that he follows the recommendations
of his tax advisors whether they be
PricewaterhouseCoopers or H&R Block.
I ask you to recall Monday when one
of the few light moments from that day
occurred when Mr. Steinfield even found some
of the tax forms to be a bit confusing. He
found them a bit confusing because he had
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
only recently received them. And I don't
mean the slightest criticism of Mr.
Steinfield; they are confusing. The fact
that the tax forms are confusing. The fact
that Mr. Romney signed his tax forms without
reviewing them is hardly evidence of
intention of where the center of his civic,
social, financial, personal life is.
20
Now, you have heard from Mr. Romney
the kinds of statements that he made publicly
regarding his future intentions when he was
in Utah. He told you that he was meticulous
in discipline; that he did not consider and
said publicly repeatedly, he would not
consider any future options until his
commitment to the Olympic Games were over.
He testified yesterday that he did
occasionally have private conversations with
his wife Ann in which they discussed
generally what they might do. What he told
you, and he certainly made some candid
comments to some members of the press to this
effect, that he expected most likely to
return immediately to Massachusetts or
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
possibly to take another temporary position,
like Mr. Adams. But he never formed an
intention and never considered -- and there
is no evidence that he considered to be
anywhere other than in Massachusetts.
21
Now, there has been considerable
attention focused by the Democratic Party on
the subject of tax forms. And I suppose for
that reason it's necessary for me to spend
some time on tax forms and I will do that.
The evidence is clear, Mr. Romney retained
PricewaterhouseCoopers to prepare his taxes;
he hired them for their expertise and he
relied on them. So, let's consider for just
a moment what the evidence shows about Mr.
Romney's Utah tax status in 1999. Mr. Romney
testified that he provided to
PricewaterhouseCoopers a count of the number
of days that he spent in Utah in 1999. That
he understood that because he spent more than
182 days in Utah that year that he must file
a resident tax return; he did so in 1999 on a
part-year basis because of course he had
spent part of the year in Massachusetts. And
Lee & Associates* C e r t i f i e ~ Court Reporters* (78r) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
22
there is nothing in that act which bears on
his intention with respect to his domicile.
He had a general understanding that he was a
resident of Utah. He received instructions
from PricewaterhouseCoopers that he should
sign the return, deal with the payment
instructions, put the return in the envelope
and send it in; that's what he did. He did
not review the Utah tax code. He did not
review instructions that are available on the
internet to taxpayers. Those instructions
were not provided to him. Now, had he
reviewed the Utah tax code, it would have
made sense to him. He would have seen the
precise provision that I've mentioned that
you must file a resident return in that state
if you are either there more than 182 days or
you are domiciled there. Now, if he had gone
on to look at the instructions which Mr.
Steinfield has marked as an exhibit, he would
have seen something else. He would have seen
a suggestion in the instructions that by
filing as a part-year resident, perhaps he's
domiciled or considered to be domiciled in
Lee & Associates " Certifieo Court Reporters " (78r) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
Utah. You will see, however, an
inconsistency between the statute and the
instructions. If Mr. Romney had done all of
that, he might have been a bit confused, but
he didn't do either of those things. And the
fact that he didn't review the statute, which
would have satisfied him, or the
instructions, which would have confused him,
is hardly indicative of his domiciliary
intent.
Now, then let's move over and
consider the Massachusetts return, which of
course he received in 1999 at the same time.
He knew that he must file as a resident, at
least for part of the year, in Utah. And he
testified that it made perfect common sense
to him that if he was a resident of Utah, he
must be a non-resident of Massachusetts. And
I suggest to you that would make sense to
most people who have just a colloquial
understanding of the terminology that's used
in taxation. Now, it's true that in the form
that Mr. Romney signed there was a blank; a
blank for legal residence or (domicile) .
Lee & Associates* Certifieo Court Reporters* (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
24
Now, if PricewaterhouseCoopers, who were the
experts, thought that Mr. Romney was
domiciled somewhere other than in
Massachusetts, they could have filled that
in. If they thought Mr. Romney ought to pay
attention to that blank in the form, they
could have instructed him in the instructions
that you have in evidence, that he should pay
attention to that aspect of the form, but
they didn't. So, Mr. Romney, with respect to
that form, followed the instructions as he
had with the Utah form; he signed it, he
dealt with the payment instructions, he put
it in the envelope and he sent it in. Mr.
Romney did not review the Massachusetts tax
code. He did not review the instructions
available on the internet. There is no
requirement that he do so, of course. And
the fact that he did not do so, and thereby
inform himself of the implications under the
tax code of the non-resident form does not
reflect his intent for purposes of a matter
of constitutional dimension concerning
whether he is entitled to stand as a
Lee & Associates C e r t i f i e ~ Court Reporters {781} 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
candidate for Governor of the Commonwealth.
Now it is of course true, as Mr.
Steinfield has pointed out repeatedly, that
when he signed his Massachusetts returns, he
did so under the penalties of perjury. I do
wish to pause to say that fortunately, we no
longer have in the Commonwealth a recognition
of the pains of perjury; we've stricken that.
But he knew that he was filing under the
penalties, but the declaration that he signed
in the tax form was different than many other
sworn declarations that we have in the legal
setting in the Commonwealth because he signed
under the penalties of the perjury only to
the best of his knowledge and belief. And
that provision or aspect of the declaration
obviously was designed to accommodate the
complexity of our taxation system, one in
which we expressly require that both the tax
preparer sign to the best of his or her
knowledge and belief and the tax preparer
or the taxpayer. Now when he signed that
form, of course he believed that whatever was
in the form, because he certainly didn't
Lee & Associates CertifieD Court Reporters (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
review all of the pages of the form -- he
believed that it must be correct because he
was told that it was correct by his tax
preparer. But the fact is that, particularly
in the complex world that we live in, people
are wrong from time to time. Even experts
are wrong from time to time, even experts in
the tax code. And that's why the tax code
specifically contains a provision for
amendment of one's tax returns in case you're
wrong. Now, the original return that he
signed is no more proof of his domicile than
the Utah return. He believed each to be
appropriate filings when he made them. He
followed the instructions of his tax preparer
and he certainly expressed no intent that he
was not domiciled in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
Now, let me return for a second to
the Utah property tax on the home in Deer
Valley. Mr. Romney's not sure whether he
knew that he received a statutory tax
reduction on that property, but he's conceded
that if he knew, it certainly would make
Lee & Associates * C e r t i f i e ~ court Reporters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
sense to him. The tax form says that the
property is taxed as primary improved
property. There is a reference to primary
residence in the fine printed form. And if
Mr. Romney had read all of that, as I said,
27
it would have made sense to him. He actually
was residing consistently in Utah during this
time. Only an obscure form required by the
Summit County Assessor makes this issue of
any interest whatsoever. That form is a
prerequisite in Summit County to entitlement
to that tax reduction. That form requires
the property owner to sign that the property
is a place of permanent residence and he has
no permanent residence anywhere else. Now,
Mr. Romney told you that he has never seen
that form before yesterday; he's certainly
heard about it reading in the newspapers in
the last several weeks, but he's never seen
it. And he did not sign it and he did not
submit it to the Summit County A s s e ~ s o r
containing any declaration that he was not
domiciled in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Now, yesterday Mr. Steinfield
Lee & Associates Certifieo Court Reporters (78r) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
graciously conceded that Mr. Romney had not
filed that form with the Summit County
Assessor. I suggest however, that in the
28
course of this proceeding, and I made this
point yesterday, that different implications
have been expressed. Indeed the evening
before Mr. Romney's testimony yesterday, on
Monday evening there was an examination of
Ms. Kresser, which you're going to see in her
deposition when you have a chance to read the
whole thing Is that she will explain in
detail that the reason that Mr. Romney and
his wife received that tax reduction is
because of the mistake that could have been
made no where other than in the Summit County
Assessor's office. That there were
inconsistent designations of the land and the
building made by the assessor. That the
inconsistent designations would generate an
error on the computer and that error had to
be corrected. That the input of the
information provided by the assessor didn't
occur until after the deadline for the
issuance of the tax bill. That they were
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
under pressure, and that her conclusion is
that it must have been an error corrected by
her office. And then local counsel for the
Democratic Party continued with examination.
And I would like to read just a few pages so
that you can understand how definitively Ms.
Kresser established that there was no filing
of the form by Mr. Romney.
I'm reading beginning at page 50:
29
"Question: Isn't it possible then that you
could have received an affidavit or a sworn
statement from Mr. Romney and placed it in
the wrong file? Answer: It's possible, but
it didn't happen. Question: Well, what
guarantees can you give that it didn't
happen? Answer: Because we looked for it
and it's not there. Question: You've gone
through every file for every personal
property in Summit County? Answer: No.
Question: So, it's possible, is it not, that
an affidavit of Mr. Romney or a sworn
statement declaring reclassification by Mr.
Romney or someone authorized by Mr. Romney,
could at this time be in existence in one of
Lee & Associates Certifieo Court Reporters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
30
the other files? I'm asking you if it's
possible? Answer: It's possible. Question:
And right now we have no that it's
not in existence in one of those other files.
Answer: No guarantees, but it really isn't
there. Question: That's your personal view?
Answer: That's my personal view. Question:
You've not actually gone through every file
for every piece of property in the Summit
County to see if that statement had been
misplaced? Answer: I've gone through every
file in the drawers surrounding that
particular subdivision. Question: How many
drawers would you say those are, how many
files? Answer: Hundreds. Question:
Hundreds? Answer: Yes. Question: You
personally have gone through hundreds of
files? Answer: I haven't personally, but my
staff has. Question: Did you watch them go
through? Answer: Yes I did. Question: How
many lots or files are in existence in all of
Summit County? Answer: About 37,000.
Question: You've gone through a couple of
hundred? Answer: Several hundred.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Question: How many hundred would you say?
Answer: I'm not sure. Question: Two
hundred, three hundred? Answer: Probably
closer to 1,000."
31
There simply isn't any doubt that
Mr. Romney never made that declaration which
has generated so many articles over the last
couple of weeks and so much attention in this
proceeding.
Now, with respect to all of the tax
forms that Mr. Steinfield has put in front of
you, I have to say that the tax stuff is
confusing. It's confusing to me. It would
have been confusing to Mr. Romney if he had
taken the time. If he had had the time,
working six and a half days for the Olympics,
to focus on. So, what do we have? We have
Mr. Romney applying common sense to the
notion that he was a Utah resident, which he
certainly was for tax purposes and therefore
he must be a non-resident of Massachusetts.
He did that when he was a part-year resident
in '99 and it just flowed through. And he
did the same thing in the year 2000. He
Lee & Associates * Certifieo Court Reporters * (78r) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
32
viewed Utah as the only residence that he was
consistently using at the time; therefore, in
that sense it was primary. And I guess we
also know he knows how to change his address
when that's convenient to do so to receive
bills and the like. And other than that, we
don't have anything here which proves
anything.about his intent. There simply
isn't anything that the Democratic Party has
proved beyond what I've just told you.
Now, the inhabitancy requirement of
our Constitution is not a 200 year old
technicality, but a constitutional
requirement of connectiveness to this
Commonwealth. Fortunately we do not live in
a world in which the right to run for office
and to serve the people of this Commonwealth
depends upon a journey through the tax code
or the labyrinth of any other of our complex
systems. I dare say every person in this
room has found themselves trapped or at least
feeling trapped from time to time in some
technical web, whether it involved taxation,
health insurance, social security, or God
Lee & Associates * Certifieo court Reporters * (78r) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
forbid, The Registry of Motor Vehicles.
Everyone of us would have the right to feel
sickened to the extent that anyone would
question our integrity because we got caught
in a technical game of got you.
Fortunately, we don't find the
evidence of Mitt Romney's life in the tax
code. Where we find his life is in Belmont,
Massachusetts where he has over 31 years
successfully created a family, succeeded in
business and created a civic life which is
about enormous contributions to this
Commonwealth.
33
Mr. Steinfield told you in his
opening that actions speak louder than words,
and he is right. The actions that center
Mitt Romney in Massachusetts were presented
in vivid detail yesterday; and they show that
over 31 years he has been a man from
Massachusetts. And I ask you to confirm that
fact with the decision that you render next
week. Thank you.
THE COMMISSION: Thank you, Mr.
Montgomery. Mr. Steinfield, would you like
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
34
to proceed, sir?
MR. STEINFIELD: Thank you Mr.
Chairman. Let met join what Mr. Montgomery
said and thank you and all members of the
Commission and staff for your courtesies, for
your patience with us, for the time that you
are devoting to this important case. Let me
also thank Mr. Montgomery for his courtesies
throughout this case.
We have handed each of you just now,
copies of exhibits. We received the
signature pages yesterday, so what we have
done simply is to combine the first page and
the signature page for your convenience. The
1999 Part-time Resident Return is Exhibit 29
and Exhibit 45A. The Amended 1999 Part-term
Resident Return is Exhibit 30 and 45B. And
the 2000 Non-resident Return is Exhibit 32
and 45C.
Now, Mr. Romney told us yesterday
that he discovered his so-called mistake in
his 1999 and 2000 tax filings sometime in
2001; he wasn't sure just when, but he
thought it was near the end of the year. And
Lee & Associates Certifieb Court Reporters (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
he says it took him until April of this year
to file resident tax returns here in
Massachusetts for the years 1999 and 2000.
If you look at the non-resident filing for
i
2000, the combined Exhibits 32 and 45C, one
of the papers I just handed up to you, you
will see that that return was signed and
35
filed on October 15, 2001. So, if you credit
Mr. Romney's testimony, either they
discovered this so-called mistake by the very
time that they were filing a different
return, a non-resident return or they
discovered it within a matter of days or at
most, weeks thereafter. But they didn't
amend the return then. They waited until
April of this year. The explanation, I
suggest to you, does not hang together and
the reason is this. We have conducted a line
by line examination of these non-resident
returns and the resident tax returns, the
ones that you marked this morning as Exhibits
51A and 51B. You have all these documents
before you. All of the information -- all of
the information that appears on the non-
Lee & Associates Certifieo Court Reporters {781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
36
resident tax return, the one they did
sometime ago, is called for on the resident
tax return. You can do the comparison
yourself. Some of the items have different
numbers on the lines, perhaps line 7 is line
9 on the other return, but all of the
information is the same. The only difference
is that the resident tax return taxes all
income rather than just part of the income.
But of course, the accountant had all of that
information because they put it on Mitt
Romney's federal tax returns for 1999 and
2000. It was all on the accountants
computer. So, preparing different returns to
correct this so-called mistake wouldn't take
five or six months, it would take an hour or
two -- half a day, maybe.
believable.
It just isn't
So, I ask you to ask yourselves one
question. Would Mitt Romney have amended his
Massachusetts income taxes if he had not
decided to run for Governor? I suggest to
you that the answer is no, he would not
because otherwise his accountants would have
Lee & Associates* Certifieo Court Reporters* (781} 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
37
prepared the resident tax returns promptly
when they discovered the so-called mistake.
They had all the data; it was on their
computers. And that is why you should pay no
attention to this amendment of convenience,
this attempt to re-write history. Although
he signed these documents, Mitt Romney takes
no personal responsibility for the fact that
the tax returns he filed can be legally used
only by a person who is not domiciled in
Massachusetts. He simply says, "Well, I did
what the accountants told me to do." So, if
we take his word for it, we have a highly
educated, very intelligent, very successful
business man who studied the law of domicile
in law school, but who paid no attention to
whether he was declaring his tax status
correctly. This is no mere technicality,
this is no trivial matter. This is a matter
of how he represented himself to the tax
authorities of Massachusetts.
Put yourself in his position just
for a minute. You are a graduate of the
Harvard Law School. You are a prominent
Lee & Associates * C e r t i f i e ~ Court Reporters * (781} 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
38
venture capitalist. You are director of
several companies. You are a former
candidate for the United States Senate. You
decide to take a high profile job and move to
Utah. You have political ambitions. You
know that every aspect of your life will be
under scrutiny. Do you think you would
simply shrug your shoulders and pay no
attention to your tax filing status? Well,
that's what Mr. Romney says he did. He says,
11
1 let PricewaterhouseCoopers decide.
11
Where
does that leave us? Here we have an
accounting firm, one of the largest and most
eminent such firms in the world preparing
Mitt Romney's taxes. Does anybody believe,
even for a second, that Pricewaterhouse
doesn't understand the significance of these
tax filing classifications. They have all
the forms, they have all the instructions;
they have them on their computers at their
fingertips. They took a lot of time. They
took ten months in the year 2000 to prepare
the 1999 part-time resident return. They
took another eight months after that to amend
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
39
that return. And then last year, in 2001,
they took ten months to prepare his year 2000
non-resident return. Is it plausible, is it
even possible that PricewaterhouseCoopers
didn't consider and study this matter? No
one came here from Pricewaterhouse to
testify. If it was all a big mistake on
their part, don't you suppose that Mitt
Romney would have brought someone here from
Pricewaterhouse to explain, to get up here
and say, we goofed.
Let me quote from the Massachusetts
Treatise on Evidence by Chief Justice Liacos
and Professors Brodin and Avery. "The most
common example of an adverse inference
involves the failure to call a witness who
would normally be expected' to be called."
The handbook then quotes the disposit in
Massachusetts cases as follows: "Where a
party has knowledge of a person who can be
located and brought forward, who is friendly
to or at least, not hostilely disposed
towards the party and who can be expected to
give testimony of distinct importance to the
Lee & Associates Certifieo Court Reporters (78r) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
40
case; the party would naturally offer that
person as a witness. If then, without
explanation he does not do so, the jury may
infer that person, had he been called would
have given testimony unfavorable to the
party." Citing Commonwealth vs. Figeroa, 413
Massachusetts 193, a 1992 decision of the
Supreme Judicial Court, that in turn
reaffirms a long line of Massachusetts
decisions.
Now, Mr. Romney, excuse me, Mr.
Montgomery, says, "Look at this tax stuff,
it's confusing." He called it the labyrinth
of the tax code just a moment ago. Well, up
on the easel you see Exhibit 31, excuse me,
31A; the instructions for Massachusetts 1999.
"You are a part-year resident if during the
taxable year you terminated your status as a
Massachusetts resident to establish a
residence outside the state." It doesn't
look so confusing. That's not a labyrinth;
that is plain English. Well, Mitt Romney
filed Massachusetts tax returns as a part-
time resident, and you have those tax returns
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
41
in the combined Exhibits that I've just
placed before you, 29 and 45A and 30 and 45B,
that is the original part-time resident
return and the amended part-time resident
return. This was no mistake. Mitt Romney's
tax specialists knew exactly what had taken
place and they knew exactly what they were
doing. Their client had moved to Utah in
1999, the year before they prepared these
part-year resident returns, in fact, two
years before they prepared the second of
those returns and they concluded that he had
terminated his status as a Massachusetts
resident. Tax preparers inform themselves of
all relevant information before they complete
your tax returns. They don't engage in guess
work and they don't make it up. They did the
very same thing on his Utah tax return. And
up on the easel you will see Exhibit 13,
which is the Utah ihstruction sheet.
Confusing.tax stuff? The labyrinth of the
tax code? I don't think so. Exhibit 13 is
an instruction that is available to
PricewaterhouseCoopers. They don't have to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
42
even go on to the internet, they can just
call up their Salt Lake City office if they
wish. But in any case, it defines a Utah
part-year resident as,
11
an individual who is
domiciled in Utah for part of the year."
That's pretty clear. Well, Mitt Romney
didn't read the instructions, but
Pricewaterhouse did. Otherwise, they could
not have prepared the tax return. It's
obvious, nothing could be clearer. These tax
advisors concluded that Mr. Romney was
domiciled in Utah and that is why they had
him do what he did. If it were otherwise, if
it was all a big mistake, those accountants
would have come in here and said under oath,
we goofed.
Mr. Montgomery pointed out in his
closing that they left the domicile portion
blank, a point that has been brought up
during this case. It really doesn't matter.
What tells you all you need to know is the
tax return forms and the status that they
chose. They chose tax returns that are only
permissible for a person domiciled outside
Lee & Associates* Court Reporters* (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
43
Massachusetts. And it happened again in
October of last year, just six months ago
when Mr. Romney filed his 2000 Massachusetts
tax returns as a non-resident, and you have
that in the combined exhibit that I handed to
you -- my secretary handed you, Exhibits 32
and 45C. Well, take a look at the
instructions, Exhibit 33A from the Department
of Revenue. This instruction defines non-
resident as someone who is
11
not a resident of
Massachusetts as defined above.
11
And if you
look above on this instruction sheet, you
will see that a resident is someone whose
legal residence -- domicile was in
Massachusetts for the entire taxable year.
Confusing tax stuff? No, plain English.
Both of these tax documents, the 1999 part-
year form and the 2000 non-resident form tell
the taxpayer right above the signature line
to give his domicile. The Commonwealth wants
to know where the taxpayer is domiciled, but
Pricewaterhouse didn't fill in that part of
the tax return and neither did Mr. Romney.
They left it blank. What an extraordinary
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
44
circumstance. He put his Utah address on the
first page, but didn't complete the domicile
part on the last page. And this is not a
trivial matter, this is vital information for
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts because if
he had put Massachusetts on the form as his
domicile, he would have been admitting he was
filing the wrong form. Instructions tell him
exactly that; that if he considers himself a
domicile in Massachusetts, then he must file
a resident return. And I cannot resist
commenting that there is no evidence before
this Commission that Governor Volpe or
Governor Herter or Governor Furcolo or
Governor Weld ever failed to file a
Massachusetts tax return.
Can anyone seriously believe that
Mr. Romney and his accountants threw these
tax returns together in some sort of a slap
dash fashion without bothering to look at
what they were doing? That just doesn't make
sense. These sophisticated accountants, Mitt
Romney's advisors for 20 years -- 20 years,
knew full well what they were doing. They
Lee & Associates Certifieo Court Reporters (781} 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
45
were preparing tax returns for Utah and for
Massachusetts to reflect the reality of those
years. Mitt Romney's reality; he had moved
to Utah and he had selected Utah as his
residence for tax purposes. And that is
exactly what he told the reporter, Lisa
Roche. She tells us in Exhibit 50 that Mitt
Romney, and I'm quoting her, "Told me that he
had declared his Deer Valley home as his
primary residence for tax purposes.
11
Mr.
Romney, by the way, does not deny that he
said that, so there's no evidence before you
to contradict or question what Ms. Roche has
stated under oath. There's the rote. You
can't say, I'm domiciled in one state for tax
purposes, but I'm really someplace else if I
decide to run for Governor. That's precisely
what the Massachusetts Constitution forbids
and for good reason. It is not enough to
say, well, I left some clothes in
Massachusetts. I came back to see my grown
children, to spend a holiday, to attend a
church opening. That testimony tells us
nothing about domicile. All it tells us is
Lee & Associates * C e r t i f i e ~ Court Reporters * (78r} 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
46
that he had furniture and clothing in Utah
and in Massachusetts, and for that matter in
New Hampshire. He was paying bills on that
house. Well, his grown children were
occupying that house. The fact that he
visited Massachusetts to see his children and
his grandchildren tells us nothing about
domicile. Similarly, Mr. Romney's nominal
membership in organizations, the board of
corporators of a school, the Town Committee,
similarly tell us nothing about domicile. He
didn't attend the meetings of those
organizations; that's what he told us.
As for voting, the evidence is that
his name remained on the voting list. Apart
from the Presidential primary and the
Presidential election, he didn't vote in
local elections from April of 1999 for the
rest of '99, for all of 2000, or for all of
2001.
Mitt Romney may say that he always
intended to come back to Massachusetts, but
his comments to the press which he affirmed
under oath two days ago, show at best a
Lee & Associates* Certifieo Court Reporters* (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
floating intention, which our cases say is
not enough. Here is what he said -- this is
in early 2001, "Politics is something that I
expect will be in my future, but where and
when, who the heck knows." In July of 2001,
47
speaking to a Utah reporter on television, "I
think it would be very hard for us to just
pack it up and move away." On that same day,
"I will survey the political landscape in
Massachusetts and in Utah." In August,
there's tugs in both directions, Utah and
Massachusetts." In September on the subject
for running for the Governor of Utah, "It may
be something I run for; it may be something
I'm asked to do." In February of this year,
"I'll take a look at the political landscape,
not only what's in Massachusetts, but other
places as well." And in late February of
this year commenting on what he would do
after the Olympic Games, "I can keep working
here for three years or I can be gone the day
after the games are over."
I ask you to consider the reasoning
now advanced by Mr. Romney and his counsel.
Lee & Associates C e r t i f i e ~ Court Reporters* (781) 848-9693
48
1 In essence what they are saying is, that once
2 you are domiciled here you can leave for as
3 long as you like. You could spend three
4 years in Salt Lake or maybe you could spend
5 six years in Salt Lake continuously or you
6 could spend three years in Salt Lake and then
7 go spend a few years in some other place; it
8 really doesn't matter. You just come back
.,
9 anytime you want, say you always intended to
10 come back someday, even some distant day, and
11 announce you're running for Governor. If
12 ever there was a case of so-called floating
13 intention, which our cases tell us is
14 insufficient to maintain domicile here in
15 Massachusetts, this is it.
16 We have the burden of proof by a
17 propounderance of the evidence. We have
18 satisfied that burden. We have more than
19 satisfied that burden. I know it is not easy
20 to take someone off the ballot, but you're
21 not here to do the easy thing. You're here
22 to do the right thing. The newspapers report
23 that some of you belong to one party and some
24 to another, that doesn't matter; I know that
Lee & Associates * C e r t i f i e ~ Court Reporters * (781) 848-9693
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
49
and you know that. When you were sworn in as
members of this Commission you put those
labels behind you just as judges. And two of
you have served as judges and put their party
labels behind them when they assumed their
position on the bench.
Now about the law, the Constitution.
I heard someone refer to the eligibility
requirement as a 200 year old law. Some
archaic technicality. You know, that's like
calling Article 16 of the Declaration of
Rights, equally a part of the Constitution, a
200 year old legal technicality. I don't
think I need to remind you that Article 16 of
our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech
and liberty of the press. This is no mere
technicality. This is the Constitution of
Massachusetts, it establishes principles and
rules. It may not be easy, it may not be
convenient, but we live by our rules. We
abide them. It is what distinguishes our
democracy. It is what makes our government a
government of laws and not of men. One of
these Constitutional rules is that not
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
50
everyone may run for Governor. The
Constitution says that unless you have been
an inhabitant of Massachusetts for seven
consecutive years, domiciled here, you may
not run for Governor. You can't just come
back and say, elect me. And what that means,
members of the Commission, is that Mitt
Romney's name cannot appear on the ballot.
He's not eligible to run. Thank you.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, sir.
Thank you both gentlemen.
make one point which will address
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, unless it's
a point of error on the part of
MR. MONTGOMERY: Well, it is a point
-- it is a point of legal error.
THE COMMISSION: I'll allow that
sir, but I don't want to have a rebuttal.
MR. STEINFIELD: Excuse me, but
we've had our closings. We're going to file
Post-closing Memoranda. I think we ought to
declare the proceedings concluded for today.
If anybody wants to comment, the place and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the proper place to do it is not now, trying
to have the last word, it's in the
submissions.
51
MR. MONTGOMERY: Well, let me say
that I considered objecting to a portion of
Mr. Steinfield's quote; I did not. I didn't
think this was the kind of proceeding in
which that would be appropriate, but I do
believe that he has made a mis-statement of
the law to you. We will certainly address it
in our brief, but I want you to know what it
is.
MR. STEINFIELD: And I strenuously
object. I thought of objecting to Mr.
Montgomery's closing when he was putting in
front of you information that appeared no
where I
THE COMMISSION: Why don't you do --
why don't you put it in your brief.
Honor.
THE COMMISSION: You're right, now
that I think of it. Are there any questions
of the panel? I think then that this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
52
concludes our actual hearings.
In concluding them I would just like
to comment. First, both to Mr. Steinfield
and to Mr. Montgomery and their partners and
associates that we really appreciate the time
and effort and the professionalism of your
presentation here today. It's been a real
pleasure for us to have a case of this
magnitude in court and to have it well
briefed and argued and presented by both
counsel. So, thank you all. Obviously, I
would like to thank my Commissioners who have
been, and will continue to be available to
complete this process, which as you know our
deadline is a week from Friday. If we can
get it a little bit earlier we will try and
do so, but I make no formal representation
that we will. Of course our staff, our Clerk
and General Counsel for the Election Division
is Michelle Tassinari. Our Special Counsel,
Paul Lazour at the end of the table. And of
course, Brian McNiff at the far end of the
room who's been doing yeoman's service and
setting down all the rules for the many
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
valued members of the press to go by. I'm
sorry we couldn't have all your cameras in
here, but I appreciate the willingness to
cooperate and make this hearing one that is
very doable.
I will take the matter under
advisement and we await documents. One
document, hopefully coming later this
afternoon. Briefs are going to be filed
Monday morning at 10:00 a.m. So, our thanks
to everybody and we'll stand adjourned.
(Whereupon, the Hearing was
concluded at 2:14 p.m.)
53
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, JO-ANNE M. GOLDEN, a Professional
Court Reporter and Notary Public within and
for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, do
hereby certify that the foregoing record,
Pages 1 through 53 is a true and accurate
transcription of ahearing before the Ballot
Law Commission, to the best of my skill and
ability.

t/Jo-Anne M. Golden, Notary Public
December 6, 2007
PLEASE NOTE: THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATION OF THIS
TRANSCRIPT DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY REPRODUCTION OF THE
SAME BY ANY MEANS UNLESS UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL
AND/OR DIRECTION OF THE CERTIFYING REPORTER.
Lee & Associates* Court Reporters* (781) 848-9693
54

Romney - Ballot Commission Testimony Transcript

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Romney - Ballot Commission Testimony Transcript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

You might also like