- 12 -
that document in the civil tax proceeding that followed the
criminal tax case. We concluded in Ames that there was
sufficient nexus between the criminal litigation for which the
document had originally been prepared, and the civil litigation
before this Court, so that the document qualified as work product
in the civil litigation. Ames v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. at 309-
310.
Additionally, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
noted that “it appears every circuit to address the issue has
concluded that, at least to some degree, the work product
doctrine does extend to subsequent litigation.” Frontier
Refining Inc. v. Gorman-Rupp Co., 136 F.3d 695, 703 (10th Cir.
1998 (and cases cited therein). Compare the foregoing with Hartz
Mountain Industries v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 521, 527-528 (1989),
in which we concluded that the fact that “the work product at
issue was prepared approximately a decade ago in distinctly
different litigation” was one of three factors that collectively
led us to rule that the work product doctrine privilege did not
protect against disclosure in that case. In this respect, the
instant case is clearly distinguishable from Hartz Mountain
Industries. A fortiori, a document prepared for the same
litigation, as in the instant case, qualifies as work product.
See discussion in Ames v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. at 310 & n.4;
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007