- 4 -
(4) Should the Court impose on petitioners a penalty under
section 6673(a)(1)? We hold that we should, and we shall impose
such a penalty in the amount of $2,000.
Respondent’s Motion To Impose Sanctions
On October 13, 2000, we issued an Order (October 13, 2000
Order) granting in part and denying in part respondent’s motion
to compel production of documents (respondent’s motion to com-
pel).3 In that Order, we directed petitioners to produce to
counsel for respondent on or before October 19, 2000, those
documents requested in respondent’s request for production of
documents (the requested trust4 documents), which we considered
to be documents of Sandbar Wholesale Trust and/or Sandbar Real
Estate Trust.5 (We shall refer collectively to Sandbar Wholesale
3In a separate Order issued on Oct. 13, 2000, we denied
respondent’s motion to compel answers to respondent’s interroga-
tories. That was because respondent had conceded, and we agreed,
that petitioners’ reliance on the Fifth Amendment to the Consti-
tution (Fifth Amendment) in support of their refusal to answer
those interrogatories was warranted, since respondent was contem-
plating or anticipating the possibility of a future criminal
investigation of petitioners.
4When referring in this Opinion to Sandbar Wholesale Trust
and/or Sandbar Real Estate Trust, our use of the words “trust”,
“trusts”, “trustees”, “general managers”, “certificates of
beneficial interest”, “capital unit certificates”, and similar
terms is for convenience only and is not intended to convey any
meaning or have any significance for Federal income tax purposes.
5In the October 13, 2000 Order, we sustained petitioners’
Fifth Amendment claim and denied respondent’s motion to compel
insofar as that motion pertained to those documents requested in
respondent’s request for production of documents, which we did
(continued...)
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