Richard L. Bennett - Page 1

                                        T.C. Memo. 1997-505                                             

                                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT                                            

                              RICHARD L. BENNETT, Petitioner v.                                         
                         COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent                                   

                  Docket No. 19775-96.             Filed November 10, 1997.                             
                        P contributed 236 films to a charitable                                         
                  organization.  In accord with an appraisal, P placed a                                
                  $236,000 value on the films.  R, in the process of                                    
                  examining P's contributions, had X, an in-house                                       
                  engineer, to value the films.  X opined that the films                                
                  had no (zero) value.  R then hired Y, an outside                                      
                  "independent" expert, to value the films.  Finally, R                                 
                  had Z, another in-house engineer, to value the films.                                 
                  Z opined that 118 of the 236 films were damaged and                                   
                  were of no value.  Z also opined that P had correctly                                 
                  valued at $1,000 per film those of the films that were                                
                  not damaged.  R's notice of deficiency to P was based                                 
                  on Z's valuation.  P obtained the valuation reports                                   
                  (reports) of the in-house engineers (X and Z), but Y's                                
                  report was not provided to P.                                                         
                        In the context of pretrial discovery P sought a                                 
                  copy of Y's report.  R refused to turn over the report                                
                  on the grounds that P was seeking to go behind the                                    
                  notice of deficiency, citing Greenberg's Express, Inc.                                
                  v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324 (1974).  P did not raise                                 
                  in any pleading or motion the issue of whether the                                    
                  notice of deficiency was arbitrary or capricious.  R,                                 

Page:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011