- 15 -
that counsel can stipulate as to which facts were set forth and
which facts were not set forth (omitted) in Ms. Welhaf’s
Memorandum to the Chief Counsel’s Office.” Respondent contends:
8. As far as Ms. Welhaf’s opinion work product is concerned, it
is respondent’s view that such opinion work product is absolutely
protected from disclosure. We reject both sides’ contentions
insofar as they would preclude us from conducting an appropriate
balancing of interests in section 7430 and section 6673(a)(2)
disputes.
We decline to adopt either side’s approach. In an effort to
give meaningful effect to the relevant public policies in a
practical way in the instant case, we chose to conduct in camera
inspections of the two unredacted memoranda. We recognize that
other courses of action may be preferable in other circumstances.
4. Application to This Case
Having conducted an in camera review of the Welhaf
memorandum and the unredacted Hyman memorandum, we conclude there
is neither a substantial need to discover any of the fact-based
work product nor compelling need to discover any of the opinion
work product.
A redacted version of the Hyman memorandum was provided to
petitioners. The redacted version of the Hyman memorandum
discloses the statements about matters of fact, but not all of
the legal strategies or opinions, set forth in the unredacted
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007