Judge Dawson said it fifty-one (count ’em, fifty-one) years ago: “The discovery procedures should be used only after the parties have made reasonable informal efforts to obtain needed information voluntarily. For many years the bedrock of Tax Court practice has been the stipulation process, now embodied in Rule 91. Essential to that process is the voluntary exchange of necessary facts, documents, and other data between the parties as an aid to the more expeditious trial of cases as well as for settlement purposes. The recently adopted discovery procedures were not intended in any way to weaken the stipulation process. See Rule 91(a) (2).” (Citation superfluous).

So now the Tax Court bench need to sort out what was informally answered and what not, in laborious detail, in such six-page novellas as Carters Lake Land, LLC, f.k.a. Sassafras Point II, LLC, Piedmont Private Equity Manager, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, et al., Docket No. 1034-21, filed 8/5/25. It’s IRS’ motion to compel responses to interrogatories. And Judge Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves has to sort out each and every one.

Nothing has changed in fifty-one years. Judge Dawson might have written these words.

“Before analyzing each interrogatory individually, the Court addresses the expectation regarding a satisfactory informal discovery process. In many of petitioner’s responses to Respondent’s First Formal Interrogatories to Petitioner, petitioner objects that respondent did not first seek specific requests informally. Respondent asserts that he has satisfied informal discovery requirements because the parties have been informally exchanging documents and information since at least June 2022. Petitioner, however, maintains that the Rules require greater specificity in informal discovery, beyond general discussions or broad exchanges. Petitioner argues that respondent is not free to raise entirely new questions in formal discovery without first seeking the answers informally because he ‘engaged in informal consultation and exchange of information’ generally.

“A principal purpose of the requirement for informal discovery is to save the Court’s and parties’ time and resources in the development of relevant and undisputed facts. See Schneider Interests, L.P. v. Commissioner, 119 TC 151, 154 (2002). In International Air Conditioning Corp. v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 89 (1976), the Court held that Rule 70(a)(1) contemplates ‘consultation or communication,’ words that connote discussion, deliberation, and an interchange of ideas, thoughts, and opinions between the parties, and a mere letter from one party to the other does not constitute a good faith effort to comply with Rule 70(a)(1).” Order, at pp. 2-3.

But the game continues.