- 7 -
discovery request may have been served late, and respondent's
timeliness concerns are moot.
Petitioner requested production of appraisal documents with
reasonable particularity in accordance with Rule 72, and
respondent objected to production. Thereafter, petitioner
properly filed the motion to compel production of documents
pursuant to Rule 72. Petitioner asks for production of
respondent's expert report obtained prior to the issuance of the
deficiency notice. Respondent contends that the expert report
was not used in the deficiency determination. Additionally,
respondent points out that the second engineer's report, which
was used as the basis for the deficiency determination, was made
available to petitioner. Respondent also notes that the
independent expert will not be called by respondent as an expert
witness at any trial.
Petitioner's discovery request for the expert report did not
contain any delineation of a specific purpose for the request or
intended use of the document. Following his motion to compel
production of the expert report, petitioner was informed by
respondent that he was not entitled to discovery of the requested
expert report because such discovery would permit petitioner to
go behind the notice of deficiency in violation of the principles
expressed in Greenberg's Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C.
324 (1974). To counter respondent's contentions, petitioner
Page: Previous 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