Attorney-at-Law

THE QUICK-KICK DENIED – PART DEUX

In Uncategorized on 05/11/2020 at 13:50

Please to refer to my blogpost “The Quick-Kick Denied,” 8/31/16, wherein I provided the following takeaway: “If Congress starves IRS of resources, it doesn’t hurt IRS. It hurts the taxpayers. 

In further proof thereof, Judge Vasquez joins Judge Buch in denying IRS’ motions to compel, respectively, document production and responses to interrogs.

IRS is on a super-quick-kick, machinegunning Branerton letters at Gilbert Hakim & Elham Hakim, Docket No. 20528-16, filed 5/11/20. For those who come late to this feast, see Branerton Corp. v. Com’r, 61 T. C. 691 (3/5/1974), the classic “play nice” discovery case.

Those of us who started our careers in the last millennium as State courtiers will remember responding to initial pleadings with a barrage of demands for bills of particulars, notices to admit, notices to produce, document production demands, notices to appear for depositions, and motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. This stuff don’t fly in Tax Court, no siree.

“Respondent’s motion to compel production of documents is based on five separate Branerton letters that respondent sent petitioners over the course of 19 days. Three of respondent’s Branerton letters gave petitioners less than two weeks to respond. One of those letters requested a response within four days. Having failed to give petitioners adequate time to respond to several Branerton letters before serving his third request for production of documents, respondent did not make a reasonable attempt to proceed with informal discovery.” Order, at p. 1. Motion denied, without prejudice.

As for answering interrogs, IRS seems to think that they can overrule Einstein (or whoever said it) by doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

“Respondent’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories is based on three of the above-described Branerton letters, none of which gave petitioners more than 11 days to respond. One of those letters requested a response within four days. Having failed to give petitioners adequate time to respond to the Branerton letters before serving his third set of interrogatories, respondent did not make a reasonable attempt to proceed with informal discovery.” Order, at p.2. Motion denied, without prejudice.

Now I don’t know the backstory here. Maybe so Gil & El were first-class top-fuel rounders. Or maybe not. There are six (count ‘em, six) pages of docket entries under this number, replete with discovery jousts, motions to calendar, motions for trial, motions for continuance, Rule 91 deemers, motions to review for sufficiency, and what not, all bandied back and forth, the overwhelming majority of which cannot be viewed online. Even if the Glasshouse Doors were flung wide to the winds, it would entail days of unremunerated toil in The City of Taxation Without Representation to try to unscramble this huevos rancheros, the which I ain’t gonna undertake nohow.

Howbeit, I must again most respectfully refer all to whom these presents come to my takeaway hereinabove in the initial or first paragraph hereof (as my two-Grey-Goose-Gibson, notwithstanding the COVID-19 lockdown, lunching colleagues would say).

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: