- 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/taxpayer
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011