- 2 -
P sought to discover R’s criminal reference
letter. Generally, criminal reference letters contain
detailed recommendations by R’s attorneys that a
taxpayer be prosecuted for criminal tax violations. R
refused to turn over the letter, claiming the work
product privilege applied. P contends that the
privilege does not apply to this civil proceeding. If
we decide it does apply, P argues that we should apply
a balancing test and decide that his substantial need
overcomes the need for assertion of the privilege.
Held: The work product privilege applies to the
criminal reference letter, and P has not shown
substantial need that would vitiate R’s claim of work
product privilege. Held, further, P did not
constructively receive income before specific amounts
were made available to him. Held, further, the
imposition of a tax liability on P’s espionage income
and/or the imposition of an accuracy-related penalty
does not constitute punishment within the meaning of
the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Aldrich H. Ames, pro se.
Richard F. Stein and John C. McDougal, for respondent.
GERBER, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in
petitioner’s Federal income tax and section 6662(a)1 penalties as
follows:
Penalty
Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a)
1989 $214,303.51 $42,860.70
1990 19,970.77 3,994.15
1991 27,367.39 5,473.48
1992 58,684.57 11,736.91
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years under
consideration, and all Rule references are to this Court’s Rules
of Practice and Procedure.
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