Branerton Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
| Decision Date | 05 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | 5042-73.,Docket Nos. 5040-73 |
| Citation | 61 T.C. 691 |
| Parties | THE BRANERTON CORPORATION, PETITIONER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENTJACK LINDNER AND ANNE LINDNER, PETITIONERS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Stephen L. Packard, for the petitioners.
D. Ronald Morello and Barry D. Gordon, for the respondent.
Rule 70(a)(1), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.— More than 30 days after joinder of issue, but prior to any informal consultation or communication between the parties, petitioners served written interrogatories (pursuant to Rule 71) upon respondent. Respondent filed (pursuant to Rule 103) a motion for a protective order. Held, a protective order will be granted for a reasonable period of time with direction that the parties attempt to attain the objectives of discovery through informal consultation or communication before utilizing the procedures provided by the rules.
This matter is before the Court on respondent's motion for a protective order, pursuant to Rule 103(a)(2), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, that respondent at this time need not answer written interrogatories served upon him by petitioners in these cases. Oral arguments on the motion were heard on February 20, 1974, and, in addition, a written statement in opposition to respondent's motion was filed by the petitioners.
The sequence of events in these cases may be highlighted as follows: The statutory notices of deficiencies were mailed to the respective petitioners on April 20, 1973. As to the corporate petitioner, the adjustments relate to (1) additions to a reserve for bad debts, (2) travel, entertainment, and miscellaneous expenses, (3) taxes, and (4) depreciation. As to the individual petitioners, the adjustments relate to (1) charitable contributions, (2) entertainment expenses, (3) dividend income, and (4) medical expenses. Petitions in both cases were filed on July 2, 1973, and, after an extension of time for answering, respondent filed his answers on September 26, 1973. This Court's new Rules of Practice and Procedure became effective January 1, 1974. The next day petitioners' counsel served on respondent rather detailed and extensive written interrogatories pursuant to Rule 71. On January 11, 1974, respondent filed his motion for a protective order. The cases have not yet been scheduled for trial.
Petitioners' counsel has never requested an informal conference with respondent's counsel in these cases, although respondent's counsel states that he is willing to have such discussions at any mutually convenient time. Consequently, in seeking a protective order, respondent specifically cites the second sentence of Rule 70(a)(1) which provides: ‘However, the Court expects the parties to attempt to attain the objectives of discovery through informal consultation or communication before utilizing the discovery procedures provided in these Rules.’
It is plain that this provision in Rule 70(a)(1) means exactly what it says. 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...data with a view towards defining and narrowing the areas of dispute. Rules 38, 70(a)(1), 91(a). See Branerton Corp. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691, 692 (1974). If a party is frustrated by his adversary in an effort to obtain needed information voluntarily, he may resort to discovery under Ru......
-
Harper v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...failed to comply with the Court's well-known rule, set forth in the Court's standing pretrial order, based upon Branerton Corp. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691 (1974), which requires the parties to exchange facts, documents, and other data necessary to expedite the case for trial or settlement......
-
Washburn v. Comm'r
...is considered "the bedrock of Tax Court practice" and acts "as an aid to the more expeditious trial of cases". Branerton Corp. v.Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691, 692 (1974). Stipulations narrow controversies to their essential issues in dispute. Estate of Quirk v. Commissioner, 928 F.2d 751, 758-......
-
Sliwa v. C.I.R., 86-7430
...because the parties had not yet had an opportunity to exchange information on an informal basis, as provided in Branerton Corp. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691 (1974), and because the case was still under the jurisdiction of the IRS Appeals Division for purposes of settlement negotiations. Sli......
-
The Nuts And Bolts Of Deficiency Cases: From Examination To The Tax Court
...procedures is mandatory and the failure to do so constitutes an abuse of the Court's procedures. See Branerton Corp. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691 (1974). Informal discovery is initiated by a Branerton letter, which lists the factual and documentary information sought by the requesting party......
-
Recent ESI changes on discovery and privilege may broadly affect tax controversies.
...See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3) (requiring discussion of ESI in discovery plan). (36.) See Prop. T.C. Rule 70(a); Brannerton v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691 (37.) Typically, the Tax Court does not issue a pre-trial order until the case is calendared for trial. See T.C. Rule 131(b). Under T.C. Rul......
-
Tax Tips
...or during Appeals jurisdiction. We will consider informal discovery efforts under the Branerton rule (Branerton Corp. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691 (1974)). If necessary, we will use formal discovery. FOIA is not intended to override judicial discovery. Government is not in the business of m......