- 9 -
In the instant case, respondent has not demonstrated that
most, if not all, of the information respondent needs could not
be obtained through the informal procedures required by Rules
70(a), 90(a), and our Branerton opinion. See Branerton Corp. v.
Commissioner, supra. Indeed, we believe that informal discovery
would be particularly useful to respondent, where, as here, the
examination phase of respondent’s inquiry was truncated by a
premature issuance of the FPAA. Under such circumstances,
respondent may well be able to use informal discovery procedures
to complete the administrative investigation that presumably
would have been undertaken if the period for issuance of the FPAA
had been extended.2 The actions of respondent’s counsel in the
instant case lead us to believe that he does not fully appreciate
the importance of our Branerton opinion. His insistence on
compliance with his formal discovery requests in advance of any
conference between the parties does not effectively present an
opportunity for the "discussion, deliberation, and an interchange
of ideas, thoughts, and opinions between the parties" that our
rules contemplate. See Intl. Air Conditioning Corp. v.
Commissioner, supra at 93.
2Informal discovery will provide respondent with a basis to
decide whether respondent may pursue unconsented deposition
testimony under Rule 75--a procedure which, respondent indicates,
may be necessary.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011