- 7 - Court, we are satisfied that it is likely that the dispute between Glaxo and the Commissioner over the Commissioner’s adjustments to Glaxo’s tax returns will proceed to litigation. See DeWagenknecht v. Stinnes, 250 F.2d 414, 417 (D.C. Cir. 1957). The central question posed in the instant application is whether the perpetuation of the proposed deponents’ testimony may prevent a failure or delay of justice. Although no objection to the proposed depositions has been made, this Court has the inherent authority to protect the integrity of its Rules regardless of an objection by a party. See Masek v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1096, 1100 (1988), supplemented by 92 T.C. 814 (1989). Accordingly, we will briefly review relevant caselaw regarding Rule 82. In Reed v. Commissioner, supra, we held that the mere showing that an applicant is currently unable to commence an action in the Tax Court is insufficient to justify granting an application under Rule 82. In denying the application in that case, we stated in pertinent part: “The relief provided for by Rule 82 is an extraordinary measure and invoked only to prevent the failure or delay of justice. We will continue to apply the test * * * which requires that the applicant show that the testimony will, in all probability, be lost before trial.” Id. at 701. In Masek v. Commissioner, supra, the applicant/taxpayerPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011