This title won’t hardly be a best-seller with the CLEflogging crowd. Everest Granite, LLC, Everest Plains Holdings, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 29477-21, filed 4/3/24, was engaged in a prolonged request for admissions pingpong, wherein IRS was distinctly getting the worst of it.

In fact, so far was IRS behindhand with responses that the Everests came within an inch of defaulting IRS altogether on deemed admissions, more particularly as bounded and described in that pinnacle of the trade press Tax Notes. Tax Notes carried the story I missed 6/22/23, the same day I also missed ex-STJ Eunkyong Choi’s ill-fated barrage of quick-toss OSCs. Hardly covered myself with glory, but neither did IRS’ counsel, whom I’ll call Mikey.

Mikey was relieved of duty after the Tax Notes spread. Let those who seek anonymity in Tax Court, fail, and wind up appearing in this my blog consider themselves lucky. Judge Cary Douglas Pugh recounts the tale of Mikey’s derelictions of duty, which will cost IRS the excess legal fees and costs to which the Everests were put by Mikey’s casual approach. I can’t think Mikey will get a big hello from Danny Werfel at the next IRS happy hour.

Judge Pugh rescues IRS from default, and hacks her way through the maze of discovery and summary J demands. I’ve often said I’m a great fan of both, but it takes two to play. And Judge Pugh is obviously unwilling to allow play to continue.

“We are not satisfied that the parties have righted the discovery ship and are even more unsure that an off-the-record conference call will resolve the parties’ differences. Therefore, we will set this case for hearing at our May 6, 2024, New Orleans, Louisiana, trial session.” Order, at p. 6. And she gives the parties a list of what to talk about.

“Furthermore, in light of the parties’ disputes and the attendant delays in preparing this case for trial or other disposition, we believe the continued use of requests for admissions would be counterproductive. We remind the parties of this Court’s emphasis on the stipulation process and the advantage of that process over other formal discovery options. See Branerton Corp. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691, 692 (1974). To the extent the parties seek agreement regarding specific facts, they should concentrate on stipulations of facts or, if necessary, motions to compel stipulation under Rule 91(f). We will look dimly on any future motions to compel discovery that do not relate to document requests. We will discuss at the May 6, 2024, hearing whether an outright ban on requests for admissions and certain formal discovery is warranted going forward.” Order, at pp. 6-7.

I fear that some less-than-diligent types will ruin useful tools for the rest of us. Lose your case at discovery, indeed.