Tax Court discovery often can thus be summarized. Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch takes us down that road more traveled by in Paul Kempin, Docket No. 2352-20, filed 4/24/25.

“How much” comes in two flavors, one acceptable and one unacceptable. Paul claims IRS’ demand for his “sources of income and interest in real property for the years at issue” goes outside the scope of the SND he got for the five (count ’em, five) years at issue.

“Our jurisdiction in a deficiency case is to determine the liability for the year in issue and can take into account facts affecting that liability, even including information relating to years not before the Court to the extent they affect the liability for the years before the Court. See I.R.C. § 6214(a). The Notice of Deficiency issued to Mr. Kempin determined deficiencies in income for the years at issue. The information sought by the Commissioner is relevant to determine Mr. Kempin’s income and sources of income for the years at issue.” Order, at p. 3.

The other “how much” demand fails.

“Request 15 seeks information showing Mr. Kempin’s assets and liabilities for the years at issue. Mr. Kempin raised multiple objections including that the request was overbroad and unduly burdensome. That request seeks, without limitation, a list of ‘Petitioner’s assets and liabilities for each taxable year…..’ As drafted, this would include every asset from real property to a thimble in a sewing kit and every liability from a mortgage backed real estate loan to an amount owed for a past due library book. We agree with Mr. Kempin that the request is overbroad. We therefore deny the Commissioner’s Motion to Compel as to request 15.” Order, at p. 3.

“Who” means a claim of client-attorney privilege, but that doesn’t protect.

“The attorney-client privilege applies only to communications made to an attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. This privilege does not protect the disclosure of the name and contact information for the individual who gave any such advice. Further, as written the request does not ask who provided legal advice regarding worthlessness, but rather, who informed Mr. Kempin that the property was worthless, as a fact. Mr. Kempin argues that his interest in a partnership became worthless. Therefore, disclosing the name of the individual who provided that information is relevant because it would assist the Commissioner in determining Mr. Kempin’s income for that year.” Order, at pp. 3-4.