- 25 -
for respondent to impose the penalties unless respondent responds
to their discovery requests. Petitioners speculate that the
facts they seek may show that petitioners were treated unlawfully
or arbitrarily, or lead to evidence showing that there was
unlawful discrimination.
Respondent contends that the data would be irrelevant and
production would be burdensome.
We need not allow discovery relating to a claim that
respondent has selectively enforced the law or unlawfully
discriminated unless the proponent makes a prima facie showing
that both elements of the standard stated above are met. St.
German of Alaska E. Orthodox Catholic Church v. United States,
supra; United States v. Bohrer, 807 F.2d 159, 161 (10th Cir.
1986); United States v. Bustamante, 805 F.2d 201, 202 (6th Cir.
1986); United States v. Moon, 718 F.2d 1210, 1229 (2d Cir. 1983);
United States v. Ness, 652 F.2d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 1981); United
States v. Catlett, 584 F.2d 864, 866 (8th Cir. 1978); Penn-
Field Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 720, 724 (1980)
(Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was not required to produce audit
data to taxpayer which failed to make a prima facie case that it
was improperly selected for audit); Davis v. Commissioner, 65
T.C. 1014, 1022-1024 (1976) (IRS was not required to produce
letter rulings relating to other taxpayers who had claimed
deductions similar to those claimed by taxpayer). Petitioners
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011