- 11 -
prepared specifically to address petitioner’s criminal tax
investigation and prosecution.
B. Has Petitioner Shown Substantial Need Sufficient To
Vitiate the Asserted Privilege?
Petitioner contends that even if we find a nexus for the
application of the work product doctrine to this civil
proceeding, he has made a sufficient showing of substantial need
outweighing the need for the protection provided by the work
product doctrine. The work product privilege is a qualified one
that, in some circumstances, may be overcome by a showing of good
cause and substantial need. See In re Grand Jury Investigation,
599 F.2d 1224, 1231 (3d Cir. 1979); Puerto Rico v. SS Zoe
Colocotroni, supra at 658. We note, however, that the CRL falls
squarely within the work product category because it contains an
attorney’s mental impressions and conclusions. See In re Grand
Jury Investigation, supra at 1231.
Petitioner contends that the CRL would enable him to show
that respondent’s motive in pursuing the civil tax liabilities is
punitive and that, therefore, this proceeding would be barred by
the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Petitioner’s
argument is flawed. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against
the imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same
offense. See Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997).
Respondent’s motive behind pursuing this civil tax case is not
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