Has IRS produced yet another variant on stealth in Desmond McGuire & Cory Lynne Brame, et al, Docket No. 25461-16, filed 2/26/25?

Back a year ago, Des’ & Cory’s trusty attorney, who according to her website “was lead counsel in the first litigated 831(b) captive insurance case tried in the United States Tax Court,” unloaded a bunch document demands (hi, Judge Holmes).

IRS, not quite as obliging as Judge David Gustafson, “objected to the requests because they were premature, overly broad and unduly burdensome, cumulative and duplicative, and required the Commissioner to produce confidential return or return information protected by I.R.C. § 6103 and information that constituted attorney work product. The Commissioner’s response referred to his answer to petitioners’ informal discovery requests and stated the process of searching for additional responsive documents was ongoing. He also stated that ‘Additional responsive documents will be produced if and when they become available.’” Order, at p.1. (Footnote omitted).

So, having gotten bortscht (please pardon arcane technical term) between March and  November last year, trusty attorney moves for leave to file motion to compel out of time (that means late).

Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch says no. IRS says they gave the documents as part of the stipulation process. The documents relate to the audit of a transactionally-related party. “The Commissioner argues that he was only able to produce the documents after a document-by-document analysis performed pursuant to section 6103(h)(4)(C) to determine if the return or return information was transactionally related to petitioners. The Commissioner states that the documents produced in discovery, in the expert production, and as proposed stipulation exhibits ‘provided a comprehensive response to petitioners’ formal discovery requests.’” Order, at p. 2.

So IRS produced the documents. Doesn’t matter when or how or whether they told trusty attorney. Motion denied.

Oh yes, btw, “We remind the Commissioner that should additional documents be found that are responsive to petitioners’ formal discovery requests, that he has a continuing responsibility to supplement his responses pursuant to Rule 102.” Order, at p. 3, footnote 4.