Opinion
3101-20 3102-20 3103-20
08-17-2021
Pauline W. Liu, et al., Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
ORDER
Joseph H. Gale, Judge.
On February 10, 2021, nonparties MIJS Captive Management, LLC (MIJS Captive) and Patriotic RE Insurance Company, Inc. (Patriotic RE) each filed a Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena, requesting therein that the Court issue an order quashing certain subpoenas duces tecum served upon them by respondent in connection with these cases. On February 24, 2021, respondent filed an Objection to each of the foregoing Motions.
On March 31, 2021, nonparty Aprio, LLP (Aprio) filed a Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena, requesting therein that the Court issue an order modifying in certain respects the subpoena duces tecum served upon it by respondent in connection with these cases. On April 5, 2021, respondent filed a document designated as "Response to Order dated March 8, 2021"; however, the document is in substance an objection to Aprio's Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena, and the Court will accordingly recharacterize it as such.
On June 28, 2021, Aprio filed a document designated as "Non-Party Aprio, LLP's Reply Brief in Further Support of Its Motion to Modify Respondent's Subpoena". The nature of document is not contemplated under Rule 147 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and it was neither solicited by the Court nor accompanied by a motion for leave to file such document. Upon review, the Court will direct that the document be recharacterized as a motion for leave to file reply to objection (embodying the reply), which we will grant as set forth below.
On July 19, 2021, the Court received two documents designated as "Non-Party MIJS Captive Management, LLC's Reply in Support of Its Motion to Quash Subpoena" and "Non-Party Patriotic RE Insurance Company, Inc.'s Reply in Support of Its Motion to Quash Subpoena". The nature of documents is not contemplated under Rule 147 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and they were neither solicited by the Court nor accompanied by motions for leave to file such documents. Upon review, the Court will direct that each document be recharacterized as a motion for leave to file reply to objection (embodying the reply), which we will grant as set forth below.
The foregoing considered, it is
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall recharacterize the document filed April 5, 2021, designated as respondent's "Response to Order dated March 8, 2021", as respondent's Objection to Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall recharacterize the document filed June 28, 2021, designated as "Non-Party Aprio, LLP's Reply Brief in Further Support of Its Motion to Modify Respondent's Subpoena", as Nonparty Aprio, LLP's Motion for Leave to File Reply to Objection (Embodying the Reply). It is further
ORDERED that Nonparty Aprio, LLP's Motion for Leave to File Reply to Objection (Embodying the Reply) is granted nunc pro tunc as of June 28, 2021, and the Reply shall be deemed to have been filed on such date. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file the document designated as "Non-Party MIJS Captive Management, LLC's Reply in Support of Its Motion to Quash Subpoena", as Nonparty MIJS Captive Management, LLC's Motion for Leave to File Reply to Objection (Embodying the Reply), as of July 19, 2021. It is further
ORDERED that Nonparty MIJS Captive Management, LLC's Motion for Leave to File Reply to Objection is granted nunc pro tunc as of July 19, 2021, and the Reply shall be deemed to have been filed on such date. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file the document designated as "Non-Party Patriotic RE Insurance Company, Inc.'s Reply in Support of Its Motion to Quash Subpoena", as Nonparty Patriotic RE Insurance Company, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Reply to Objection (Embodying the Reply), as of July 19, 2021. It is further
ORDERED that Nonparty Patriotic RE Insurance Company, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Reply to Objection is granted nunc pro tunc as of July 19, 2021, and the Reply shall be deemed to have been filed on such date. It is further
ORDERED that, in addition to regular service, the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon the following persons:
Alisha Dickie
Moore Ingram Johnson & Steele, LLP
326 Roswell Street, Suite 100
Marietta, GA 30060
Johannes S. Kingma
Copeland, Stair, Kingma & Lovell
One Ninety One Peachtree Tower
191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3600
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
John C. deMoulpied
Copeland, Stair, Kingma & Lovell
One Ninety One Peachtree Tower
191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3600
Atlanta, Georgia 30303