-16-
motion to quash a summons that respondent had issued to obtain
certain documents from the estate.
We disagree. Based on our review of the record and
petitioners’ arguments, we find that the estate had a good faith
belief that some of the documents respondent sought were
irrelevant, sealed, or contained sensitive Kohler business
information and filed a motion to quash the summons to protect
its rights. Once the court denied the estate’s motion to quash
the summons, the estate provided the documents respondent
requested. Respondent has not argued that respondent’s
investigation was impaired by any lack of documentation.
Moreover, the voluminous exhibits that are part of the record
belie this argument.
Respondent cites several cases where we did not shift the
burden of proof to the Commissioner where the Commissioner was
forced to issue a summons to force compliance with an information
request. AMC Trust v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-180; Rinn v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-246; Burnett v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-181, affd. 67 Fed. Appx. 248 (5th Cir. 2003); Pham v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-101. No case that respondent cites
involves a taxpayer’s legitimate attempt to protect confidential
or proprietary business information. In contrast, these cases
involve sham trusts, taxpayers who failed to file returns,
taxpayers who had unreported income, and taxpayers who asserted
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