Attorney-at-Law

DON’T SUPPOSE YOU CAN DEPOSE – PART DEUX

In Uncategorized on 09/02/2014 at 18:43

Now comes the defender of the taxpayers’ wallet at the sixty-buck-palace-of-justice, The Great Dissenter, a/k/a The Judge Who Writes Like a Human Being, s/a/k/a The Implacable Unrelenting Foe of the Partitive Genitive, Judge Mark V. Holmes, who strides into the breach and stifles IRS’ deposition demand in Caylor Land & Development, Inc., et al., Docket No.17204-13, filed 9/2/14.

There are Seven Little Caylors, but I’ll just deal with this one. First day back from a three-day weekend is tiring.

IRS wants to depose both Robert II and Paula. They both say “no.”

Judge Holmes: “The change to our Rules to allow depositions of parties is fairly recent, and we still treat them as ‘an extraordinary method of discovery.’ Rule 74(c)(1)(B). What this division of the Court looks for is the general state of informal discovery, the stakes involved, and whether the depositions would materially aid the trial and possible settlement of the cases.” Order, at p. 1.

While the course of discovery hasn’t been of the smoothest, the Caylors haven’t scorched the earth (yet).

And though the issue (captive insurer of private business meets estate planning) is an IRS hotpot, the money on the table in this case isn’t huge.

“But even though the issue may be large, the Court continues to be reluctant to have the major costs of extensive discovery and pretrial-motion practice borne by the petitioners in relatively small cases. See Rule 70(c)(1)(C). And because this type of case has not yet been settling, it seems likely that the Caylors’ depositions would only be a rehearsal for very similar trial testimony.” Order, at pp. 1-2.

No-go, IRS. Ya should’a read my blogpost “Don’t Suppose You Can Depose”, 12/2/13

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.