- 17 -
violated rule 6(e). Accordingly, because respondent used exhibit
3 to prepare the statutory notice of deficiency in the instant
case, they move that we both suppress use of exhibit 3 and shift
to respondent the burden of proof as to the proposed
deficiencies.
We decline to grant petitioners' motion. Petitioners have
failed to make even a prima facie case for the proposition that
exhibit 3 was "grand jury material." See Blalock v. United
States, 844 F.2d 1546, 1551-1552 (11th Cir. 1988). Petitioners
have not identified the grand jury, when it met, who convened it,
or who its targets were.4 Petitioners themselves have not sought
a rule 6(e) order to ascertain whether there was a violation of
the rules relating to grand juries. See DiLeo v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1989-540, affd. 959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992). Exhibit 3
in no way indicates that the information it listed was connected
with a grand jury investigation. Although exhibit 3 lists some
trading gains and losses, it does not indicate who controlled the
brokerage accounts or whether any taxes were owing or paid as a
result of the net gains. Additionally, during the administrative
phase of the instant case, the record reveals that Government
officials repeatedly cautioned against revealing any grand jury
4The only reference we have found to a grand jury during the
Fatico hearing is an indirect reference to some unrelated
documents that were produced earlier pursuant to a grand jury
summons.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011