- 29 -
the order is obeyed, or dismissing the case or any part thereof,
or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient
party.” Rule 104(c)(3).
Petitioners, in their motion, have asked the Court to “issue
an order imposing sanctions upon Respondent for failure to adhere
to the Branerton Requirement.” Petitioners, on brief, claim that
“Respondent should have granted Petitioners [sic] (numerous
written) requests for Discovery, as the pertinent documents were
in their possession, and not inconvenient for the Service (an
assistant or secretary) to copy and mail to the Petitioners [Tax
Court Rule 72]”.
Petitioner’s motion further states that “After Respondent
failed to provide Petitioners copies of every document given to
the Service Petitioners then made application to the Court for a
Written Deposition [to] be taken of Tax Compliance Officer, D.L.
Irving.” (Emphasis omitted.) The Court denied petitioners’
applications for orders to take depositions. Although
petitioners repeatedly argued that respondent failed to provide
them with requested documents, petitioners on brief asserted that
they were able to reconstruct “with original documentation the
majority of deductions which had been taken”. (Emphasis
omitted.)
Respondent complied with all of the Court’s orders, and as a
result was in compliance with Rule 104(c). All of petitioners’
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008