Opinion
17483-21
04-25-2024
ARDAN HOLDINGS, LLC, ARDAN INVESTORS, LLC, TAX MATTERS PARTNER Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Mark V. Holmes, Judge
This case arises from a contested donation of a conservation easement and was tried at a special session of the Court starting on February 26, 2024, in Columbia, South Carolina. Trial is set to resume and end in Atlanta the week of April 29, 2024.
On April 24, 2024, two business days before that resumption of the trial, respondent filed a motion for leave to file out of time a motion for an order to show cause why proposed facts and evidence should not be accepted as established pursuant to Rule 91(f). He attached a remarkable 1,935 pages, nearly all exhibits that he wants petitioner to stipulate to.
We certainly understand respondent's frustration with what appears to be petitioner's refusal to stipulate to the admission of its own business records, but this motion is a wholly inappropriate one to make in the middle of trial. Rule 91(f) is a pretrial motion, with a filing deadline of 45 days before a trial begins, and with 20 days for a party to respond to any order to show cause that we might issue under that Rule.
We acknowledge respondent's invocation of our general discretion to change non-statutory deadlines. But this would be wholly impractical under the circumstances. Both sides are reminded that section 6673(a)(2) provides a remedy for attorneys who unreasonably and vexatiously multiply proceedings and force a party to incur excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.
It is
ORDERED that respondent's April 24, 2024 motion for leave is denied.