In Uncategorized on 09/06/2019 at 17:21

As I said in my blogpost (Part Un), “No, not the one-hit wonder The Hombres campaigned in 1967. It’s the general view manifested in Tax Court when taxpayers request protective order, or make motions in limine, or motions to strike pleadings.” See my blogpost “Let It All Hang Out,” 9/17/13.

Some things never change.

Leon Max, Docket No. 20237-16, filed 9/6/19, has two in limines to IRS’ one, with trial less than two weeks off, and Judge Buch kicks all three to the cliché.

Maybe Max’s expert’s background doesn’t impress IRS, but “(H)is report is helpful to the Court in that it discusses industry practices and provides useful background information.” Order, at p. 2.

As for IRS’ experts, while one expresses conclusions and Max claims exceeds the expert’s area of expertise, Judge Buch doesn’t think so.

As for the other, Max’s concerns about old Rule 41 issues go away as the Rule was changed, and IRS claims they won’t introduce evidence of the sampling discussions between counsel.

Anyway, “(A)lthough we fully expect that Mr. Max may make any objections at trial he feels necessary, including relevance objections, we do not share his concerns about confusion of the witnesses or the Court. Witnesses testify to relevant facts, not legal standards. If questions relate to topics that are not relevant, the Court will address objections made at that time. We are not concerned that the Court will become confused as to the correct legal standard.” Order, at p. 3.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: