- 17 - violated rule 6(e). Accordingly, because respondent used exhibit 3 to prepare the statutory notice of deficiency in the instant case, they move that we both suppress use of exhibit 3 and shift to respondent the burden of proof as to the proposed deficiencies. We decline to grant petitioners' motion. Petitioners have failed to make even a prima facie case for the proposition that exhibit 3 was "grand jury material." See Blalock v. United States, 844 F.2d 1546, 1551-1552 (11th Cir. 1988). Petitioners have not identified the grand jury, when it met, who convened it, or who its targets were.4 Petitioners themselves have not sought a rule 6(e) order to ascertain whether there was a violation of the rules relating to grand juries. See DiLeo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-540, affd. 959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992). Exhibit 3 in no way indicates that the information it listed was connected with a grand jury investigation. Although exhibit 3 lists some trading gains and losses, it does not indicate who controlled the brokerage accounts or whether any taxes were owing or paid as a result of the net gains. Additionally, during the administrative phase of the instant case, the record reveals that Government officials repeatedly cautioned against revealing any grand jury 4The only reference we have found to a grand jury during the Fatico hearing is an indirect reference to some unrelated documents that were produced earlier pursuant to a grand jury summons.Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011