I wish I could buy stock in discovery; it is surely a growth industry, spread across numerous tax sectors, from Dixieland Boondockery to the popularly-viewed sunsets in Ogden, UT. Here’s Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler’s take on the former, Longwood Preserve Holdings, LLC, Longwood Preserve Investors, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 12421-19, filed 2/2/24.

First, the Longwoods want a list of IRS’ third-party contacts. IRS says no, Greenberg Express [sic; should be Greenberg’s Express] and attorney work product for trial. Judge Speedy Weiler: “We disagree; and do not find the mere disclosure of names or identities of third parties that respondent has contacted to be privileged or otherwise in violation of Greenberg Express [sic].” Order, at p. 1. But as for what the above third parties told IRS, that’s out. Order, at p.2.

Next, the Longwoods want legal opinions and/or attorney work product, which they don’t get. They have BoP.

The Longwoods want an appraiser’s complete appraisal review report and work file, copies of all other appraisals of the property at issue, and all other valuations used as comparable for the conservation easement at issue here. IRS “objects to this request on the grounds of relevance, in violation of Rule 143(g) and on the grounds of privilege under the attorney work product doctrine. Finally, respondent notes how all responsive documents were furnished….” Order, at p. 2. Sustained.

Finally, “petitioner seeks an email from Mr. R [appraiser]…, which was referenced in documents received pursuant to a FOIA request. Respondent objects to the Request arguing the email is irrelevant to the proceeding and contains third party return information protected under section 6103. Since section 6103 protects third party tax information, including return information, respondent contends the exception under section 6103(h)(4)(B) does not apply here. Petitioner, on the other hand, contends an email is not a ‘return’ as protected under section 6103. In addition, petitioner argues the email is relevant because it contains a general discussion of ‘business use’ of donated property by respondent.

“The court does not find an email from Mr. Robertson to be a ‘return’ as contemplated under section 6103; however, the email may very well contain a taxpayer’s ‘return information’ as described in section 6103(b)(2). The Court notes how ‘return information’ does not include ‘data in a form which cannot be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer.’ See I.R.C. §6103(b)(2). Accordingly, the Court will sustain in part, and overrule, in part, respondent’s objections to petitioner’s Document Request 5, and order that respondent produce the responsive email, after redacting any third-party taxpayer’s ‘return information’ contained in the email and as described in section 6103(b)(2).” Order, at p. 2. (Name omitted).

Happy hunting ground for discovery geeks.