Opinion
14971-22
03-04-2024
JAMES A. WALTZ & KAREN A. WALTZ, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Elizabeth A. Copeland, Judge
This case is calendared for trial at the Trial Session of the Court scheduled to commence on April 8, 2024, in New York, New York.
On February 23, 2024, Respondent (the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)) filed with the Court a Motion to Compel Responses to Respondent's Interrogatories and a Motion to Compel Production of Documents (the "Motions"). Respondent represents that Petitioners, Mr. & Mrs. Waltz, have been unresponsive to the inquiries regarding discovery requests or as to whether they object to the granting of these Motions.
A party opposing discovery has the burden of establishing that the information sought is not relevant or is otherwise not discoverable, e.g., because it is protected by privilege. See Rutter v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 937, 948 (1983); Branerton Corp. v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 191, 193 (1975). For purposes of discovery the standard of relevance is liberal: our Rules permit discovery of any material relevant "to the entire 'subject matter' of the case." Zaentz v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 469, 471 (1979) (quoting Rule 70(b)).
The information Respondent seeks appears relevant to the adjustments in the notice of deficiency. A full and meaningful response from the Waltz's is necessary to enable Respondent to address the allegations the couple has has advanced in the Petition. See Zaentz, 73 T.C. at 478 ("[T]o prepare properly for trial, it is necessary for each party to know the position of the other party and discovery may be used to clarify that position.") Accordingly, we will grant both Motions.
Mr. & Mrs. Waltz are encouraged to contact the Low Income Taxpayer Clinics in their locale, namely: Brooklyn Legal Services Corporation at (718) 487-2300; Hofstra Law School Federal Tax Clinic at (516) 463-5934; Fordham University School of Law - Lincoln Square Legal Services, Inc. at (212) 636-7353; or Bronx Legal Services at (917) 661-4500.
Upon due consideration, and for cause, it is
ORDERED that, Respondent's Motion to Compel Responses to Respondent's Interrogatories, filed February 23, 2024, is granted in that Petitioners shall complete and serve upon Respondent's counsel, on or before March 25, 2024, forthright and comprehensive responses to those interrogatories served on Petitioners on January 23, 2024. If Petitioners object to any particular interrogatory, then they shall file a Response to this Order by March 25, 2024, stating their specific objection and the legal and factual support for such objection. It is further
ORDERED that, Respondent's Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed February 23, 2024, is granted in that Petitioners shall produce to Respondent's counsel, on or before March 25, 2024, for inspection and copying, the documents set forth in Respondent's Request for Production of Documents served on Petitioners on January 23, 2024. If Petitioners object to any particular document request, then they shall file a Response to this Order by March 25, 2024, stating its specific objection and the legal and factual support for such objection.
In the event that Mr. & Mrs. Waltz do not fully comply with the provisions of this Order, the Court will be strongly inclined to impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 104, which may include deeming certain facts to be established for purposes of trial and prohibiting Petitioners from introducing designated matters into evidence. If Respondent reasonably believes that Mr. & Mrs. Waltz have not fully complied with this Order, Respondent may file, within 10 days of receiving the Waltz's production, but in any event by April 4, 2024, a Motion for Sanctions requesting specific and targeted sanctions for noncompliance.