Opinion
19714-16
04-10-2024
CLAIR R. COUTURIER, JR., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Albert G. Lauber, Judge.
This case is calendared for further trial at the Court's special session in Seattle, Washington, beginning April 29, 2024. On March 7, 2024, the parties filed a Second Joint Stipulation for the Deposition of Roorda, Piquet & Bessee, Inc. (RPB or deponent), for Discovery Purposes. Petitioner concurrently served on the designated representative for RPB a Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition. This subpoena directed deponent to bring with it to the deposition "[a]ny and all documents relating to the topics listed" in an attachment to the subpoena. These documents related to accounting advice that deponent may have given petitioner in connection with the transaction at issue in this case.
On April 5, 2024, petitioner filed a document captioned "Motion to Compel Production of Documents" in which he seeks an order from this Court enforcing the subpoena. See Rule 147. He represents that deponent, in response to the subpoena, objected to the production of certain records out of a concern that producing them would cause it to violate the provisions of section 7216 and/or California Business and Professions Code (BPC) § 17530.5 (prohibiting disclosure of taxpayer information by return preparers). However, petitioner represents that deponent is willing to comply with an order of this Court enforcing the subpoena.
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Because petitioner is seeking an order directing deponent (a third party) to comply with the subpoena, we will recharacterize his Motion as petitioner's Motion to Enforce Subpoena. Petitioner represents that respondent does not oppose the granting of this Motion. There is no dispute that the documents withheld by deponent are relevant to the issues presented by this case.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Compel Production of Documents, filed at docket entry #244 on April 5, 2024, is hereby recharacterized as petitioner's Motion to Enforce Subpoena. It is further
ORDERED that the Motion to Enforce Subpoena is granted in that the subpoenaed party shall produce to petitioner's counsel, on or before April 17, 2024, the documents referenced in this Order. This Order granting the Motion is intended to be a Federal Court Order for purposes of section 7216 and Treasury Regulation § 301.7216-2(f) such that deponent's production of records in response to the subpoena will fall within the scope of the provisions of Treasury Regulation § 301.7216-2(f) and BPC § 17530.5 (permitting the production of records pursuant to Federal Court Order). It is further
ORDERED that, in addition to regular service, the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on counsel for deponent as follows:
Randall J. Dean
Chapman Glucksman
11900 W. Olympic Boulevard Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90064