In Uncategorized on 09/30/2022 at 22:09

Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler is tasked with keeping a witness whose deposition testimony might have been somewhat parsimonious on the straight-and-narrow, while not actually imposing the sanctions IRS wanted.

Once again we’re looking at Buckelew Farm, LLC f.k.a. Big K Farms LLC, Big K LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 14273-17, filed 9/30/22. All y’all will recollect that Judge Speedy Weiler ordered a Rule 81 deposition; if not, see my blogpost “Stall Your Case At Discovery,” 4/28/22. The Buckalews sent in Mr. A. (name omitted), the managing director of the manager of Buckalew Farm, LLC, to testify.

IRS says Mr. A. answered 100 (count ’em, 100) times “I don’t recall.” Order, at p. 2. So IRS claims evasion is equivalent to not showing up at all. IRS wants an order imposing sanctions, freezing Mr. A.’s testimony, so any testimony at variance therewith will be stricken.

The Buckalews claim that depositions are not memory exams, that IRS took sound bites from Mr. A.’s testimony, and Mr. A. testified for eight (count ’em, eight) hours. Maybe he couldn’t recall conversations and documents from ten years ago.

Judge Speedy Weiler is inventive.

“After reviewing the deposition, we agree with petitioner that ‘excerpts [r]espondent cites in its [M]otion [to Impose Sanctions] are sound bites or snippets that do not accurately reflect the . . . testimony that Mr. A gave.’ Contrary to respondent’s contention that Mr. A was being evasive, we find that Mr. A attempted to answer respondent’s questions or at least addressed the topics presented. Respondent has not shown to our satisfaction that Mr. A inadequately prepared, acted in bad faith, prejudiced respondent, or disrupted the deposition to warrant sanctions in this case.  However,  we caution petitioner that should Mr. A’s testimony at trial differ substantially from his deposition testimony, petitioner must provide a good faith justification for such deviation. Therefore, we find that respondent has failed to satisfy his burden of proof under Rule 104(c) and that sanctions are not warranted in this case.” Order, at p. 3. (Citation omitted).

When is a sanction not a sanction? When Judge Speedy Weiler is on the case.


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 )

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: