Johnson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 122619 FEDTAX, 17324-18

Docket Nº:17324-18
Opinion Judge:David Gustafson, Judge
Party Name:ANTOINE A. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Case Date:December 26, 2019
Court:United States Tax Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

ANTOINE A. JOHNSON, Petitioner,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

No. 17324-18

United States Tax Court

December 26, 2019

ORDER

David Gustafson, Judge

This case is scheduled to be tried at the Court's session in Washington, D.C., beginning January 13, 2020. On December 16, 2019, the Commissioner filed a motion (Doc. 11), asking us to "permit Respondent to issue a subpoena duces tecum directing Bank of America ... to produce ... documents to respondent on a date prior to the January 13, 2020 calendar." (Emphasis added.) Petitioner does not oppose the motion. For the reasons stated herein, we deny the motion.

Background

The petition in this case (Doc. 1) was filed September 4, 2018. It challenges a statutory notice of deficiency in which the IRS attributed to petitioner "cancellation of debt" income on the basis of reporting on Form 1099-C by Bank of America. The petition alleges that someone stole his bank card and fraudulently used it to incurred debt.

The Commissioner's motion alleges that, after this case was set for trial (see Doc. 8), he served on Bank of America a subpoena duces tecum, using Form 14 from the Rules of the Tax Court, to obtain documents for use in the trial of this case. The Commissioner's motion explains: 5. Personnel at Bank of America advised respondent that no documents will be released prior to the date specified on the face of the subpoena duces tecum (Form 14), which is January 13, 2020.

6. Given that the Form 14 subpoena duces tecum expressly directs the subpoenaed person to produce documents on the date of the calendar call, respondent is unable, without Court approval, to specify a date other than the calendar call date. Respondent's motion would ensure receipt of the subpoenaed documents with sufficient time to review them and pursue further inquiry in the event the documents produced are either not in full compliance with the subpoena or otherwise contain information that may lead to discovery of more relevant information.

7. Bank of America personnel advised that if the face of the subpoena duces tecum were to specify an earlier date, it would happily comply and release the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP