Collectors of great vintages assiduously seek these out to savor. Tax Court watchers are no less eager to find exemplars among the outwash of routine housekeepers and protester brush-offs. Judge David Gustafson obliges, as is his nature, with Carl Lawrence Collins, III,  Docket No. 2643-17, filed 8/28/25.

CLC3 wants to depose nine (count ’em, nine) individuals, apparently all IRS employees, who should bring to the depositions  “all the documents that ‘were authored, reviewed or transferred, or all, concerning the Petitioner and all entities associated with the Petitioner from tax years 12/31/1996 to 11/13/18.’” Order, at p. 1.

Judge Gustafson has the short answer: “Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, depositions are ordinary. In the Tax Court, it is not so.” Order, at p. 1. See Rule 74(a) and Branerton.

Besides, there are four (count ’em, four) reasons why CLC3’s motion to compel depositions must fail, so IRS need not answer. There’s no showing of compliance with Rule 74(c) (Judge Gustafson says “Rule 70(c) quoted above,” but that’s a typo); no attempt at Rule 70(a)(1) informality; no showing of relevance of 1996 to 2018, when this case involves a SND for 2010; and this motion “attempts to get documents from a party-opponent by using a subpoena duces tecum served on the party’s personnel rather than by a document request to the party itself under Rule 72.” Order, at pp. 1-2.

“The motion alleges that ‘this case involves complex issues of tax law, which arose, based upon inconsistent practices of implication of the US Tax Code by the Respondent, by and through its employees; and thus, said employees’ testimony as well as items and documents within the possession of the Respondent are relevant and necessary.’ We have looked at the notice of deficiency attached to the petition, and it seems to show unreported income and disallowed deductions–i.e., not ‘complex issues of tax law’ but garden-variety adjustments that petitioner may resist by documenting the positions he reported on his 2010 tax return.” Order, at p. 2.

Now comes a Judge Gustafson classic, a gem for the connoisseur to savor: “A deficiency case is not about the IRS but is about the petitioner. The petitioner cannot win a deficiency case by proving that the IRS did a bad audit, and the IRS cannot win a deficiency case by proving that it did a good audit. The issue in this case is not the IRS’s audit but the petitioner’s income and deductions.” Order, at p. 2.

I have never seen a better explanation of de novo and Greenberg’s Express.

Judge Gustafson shows again his practical approach. He tells IRS to hand over whatever it has that’s relevant to 2010, without waiting for Branerton formalities.

“The disruption that presumably resulted from petitioner’s incarceration may have caused him to lose access to records he otherwise might have had; if so, and if the IRS has copies, then the IRS should provide them. Early voluntary production can sometimes render discovery disputes and motions unnecessary and avoid trouble and expense for both parties.” Order, at p. 2.

“Win your case at discovery” CLEfloggers please copy.