Summary
finding that requiring the IRS to provide a detailed explanation "would impose an impossible burden on the IRS to essentially determine tax deficiencies before even completing an examination of the tax returns at issue"
Summary of this case from Veg Corp v. United StatesOpinion
Civil Action No. 3:99-CV-1842-L
September 17, 2002
ORDER
The court has taken an extensive look at the issues raised in the parties' pleadings; files and records in this case; the Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, filed February 9, 2001; and the parties' various objections, including Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement the Record, filed March 23, 2001, and Defendant's response, filed March 30, 2001. In their motion to supplement, Plaintiffs contend that because Plaintiffs' daughters are "unnamed, unvested, and discretionary beneficiaries" of trust MST 16, Plaintiffs' daughters do not control or have access to MST 16 documents. Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that Mr. Eulich's testimony regarding the election of directors relates only to "domestic corporations whose stock is not directly owned by MST 16." On the other hand, the Defendant, who does not oppose Plaintiffs' motion to supplement, contends in its response that the additional facts presented in Plaintiffs' motion confuse rather than clarify the matter and add nothing new to the magistrate's findings. The court has determined that it will allow Plaintiffs to supplement the record; nevertheless, the court determines, based on its review of these additional materials, that even if taken as true, the contentions raised in Plaintiffs' motion do not negate the findings set forth in the magistrate's report, which the court has determined sufficiently states the law and resolves the issues presented in this action. The court therefore concludes that the Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are hereby accepted as those of the court. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion to supplement the record is granted; Plaintiffs' objections and request for an additional hearing are overruled; Plaintiffs' motions to quash the IRS summons and Formal Document Requests ("FDR") are denied; Defendant's motion to enforce the IRS summons and FDRs is granted; and Plaintiffs are directed to appear at a time, date, and place designated by the Defendant to respond to the summons and FDRS, unless extended by agreement of the parties.
It is so ordered this 17th day of September, 2002.