- 2 -
Ps contend (1) the memoranda are not work product
at the current stage of the litigation; (2) Ps are
entitled to discovery even if the memoranda are work
product; and (3) R waived the privilege.
1. Held: Both memoranda were work product when
prepared for the case in chief and continue to be work
product in the current stage of the litigation.
2. Held, further, having examined both memoranda
in camera, we conclude that neither memorandum contains
information sufficiently important to outweigh the
privacy and other concerns underlying the work product
doctrine.
3. Held, further, R’s brief reference in the
motion papers to the memoranda, but not to either
memorandum’s contents, does not amount to a
“testimonial” use of either memorandum that would
constitute an implied waiver of the work product
doctrine privilege.
Jack B. Schiffman, for petitioners.
Robert M. Fowler, for respondent.
OPINION
CHABOT, Judge: This matter is before us on petitioners’
Motion for Award of Reasonable Litigation and Administrative
Costs Under Section 74301 as well as petitioners’ Motion for
Sanctions Under Section 6673(a)(2) in the instant collection
proceeding. The issue for decision is whether two memoranda
1 Unless indicated otherwise, all section references are to
sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect for
proceedings commenced on the day the petition in the instant case
was filed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007