Richard L. Bennett - Page 15

                                                - 15 -                                                  

            Following that mandate we are bound by rules of evidence                                    
            contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but we are not                           
            compelled to follow procedural rules contained in the Federal                               
            Rules of Civil Procedure.  McKenzie v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 139,                           
            142-144 (1972), affd. without published opinion 486 F.2d 1401                               
            (5th Cir. 1973).  Rule 1(a), however, provides that where there                             
            is no applicable rule of procedure, the Court may prescribe the                             
            procedure, giving particular weight to the Federal Rules of Civil                           
            Procedure.  See Brannon's of Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69                              
            T.C. 999, 1001 (1978).                                                                      
                  If we were to follow the FRCP for guidance in this matter,                            
            the critical question that would have to be answered is whether                             
            the expert report in question was obtained by respondent in                                 
            anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial.  Rule                                  
            26(b)(4)(B) limits discovery, except in unusual circumstances, of                           
            expert opinions obtained solely in anticipation of litigation or                            
            in preparation for trial.  Respondent contends that the expert                              
            report was prepared in anticipation of litigation.  The expert                              
            report was obtained by respondent's agent during the examination                            
            of petitioner's tax returns and prior to the issuance of the                                
            notice of deficiency.  Respondent has not shown that his lawyer                             
            was involved in the administrative process when the independent                             
            expert was hired; that the expert report was prepared at the                                
            direction of an attorney; or that the expert report was in any                              





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