- 3 -
attempted to obtain information regarding the Trust through
informal discovery requests. This attempt was unsuccessful. On
July 7, 1998, respondent proceeded with formal discovery, serving
on petitioners Respondent’s Request for Production of Documents
and Respondent’s Interrogatories to Petitioners.
Petitioners produced none of the documents requested by
respondent. Instead, petitioners submitted a response in which
they claimed to be unable to produce the requested documents on
the grounds that the documents were in the “exclusive possession
and control of Jimmy C. Chisum, Managing Agent for D & E Sword
Trustee Co., Trustee for D.D. Trust.”3 On August 17, 1998,
respondent filed with the Court a Motion to Compel Production of
Documents. On August 19, 1998, the Court ordered petitioners to
produce the requested documents by September 9, 1998.
Petitioners failed to respond to this order. On September 15,
1998, the Court granted respondent’s motion to compel and ordered
that petitioners would not be allowed to offer into evidence any
3 Petitioners contended that Mr. Chisum refused to provide
them with records of the Trust. This assertion, however, is
difficult to reconcile with petitioners’ admission that Mr.
Chisum had become a “good friend” in the years since inception of
the Trust and that the parties met “quite regularly.”
In addition, petitioners’ difficulty in obtaining documents
from the trustee appears to have been selective. As an exhibit
to Petitioners’ Response to Motion for Date and Time Certain for
Trial filed with the Court on October 5, 1998, petitioners
attached a copy of a notice of deficiency issued to the Trust for
the taxable year at issue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011