- 6 -
constitute a waiver of the restrictions on assessment;
and (5) that petitioners were not precluded by section
6330(c)(2)(B) from arguing that the assessment violated
section 6213(a).
On June 13, 2002, the Court issued a notice of trial in the
instant case. In due course: the instant case was continued,
the instant case was again set for trial, the Court dealt with
motions by both sides, the trial was held, briefs were filed, the
Court issued T.C. Memo. 2004-86 holding for petitioners, and the
Court entered decision “that respondent may collect only $2,931
for taxable year 1993 as set forth in the Court’s March 13, 1997,
decision [the decision that ended the 1996 case].”
On petitioners’ motion this decision was vacated;
petitioners then moved for an award of costs under section 7430
and later moved for sanctions under section 6673(a)(2). At some
point, respondent provided to petitioners a redacted version of
the Hyman memorandum. In connection with the latter motions, the
parties have stipulated the redacted Hyman memorandum.
Petitioners now seek to discover the unredacted Welhaf
memorandum and the unredacted Hyman memorandum. Respondent
claims that the memoranda are protected work product and refuses
petitioners’ discovery requests. We directed respondent to
submit these memoranda for in camera inspection along with an
explanation of why the memoranda should not be disclosed to
petitioners in whole or in part. (See supra notes 2 and 3.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007