Opinion
7648-22L
03-01-2023
ANDREW ETHAN MACTAGGART, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Lewis R. Carluzzo Chief Special Trial Judge
This case, tried and submitted in Houston, Texas, on February 14, 2023, is before the Court on (1) petitioner's motion to review the sufficiency of respondent's answers to requests for admission, filed December 27, 2022; (2) petitioner's motion to compel the production of documents, filed December 28, 2022; (3) petitioner's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution; filed January 20, 2023; (4) petitioner's motion to sever, filed February 6, 2023; (5) petitioner's motions in limine, both filed February 6, 2023; and (6) respondent's motion to sever, filed June 21, 2022.
All of the above-reference motions were called for hearing in Houston, Texas, on February 13, 2023. Petitioner's motion to sever was heard further in Houston, Texas, on February 14, 2023. The parties appeared on each date and were heard.
Petitioner's motion to review the sufficiency of respondent's answers to requests for admissions.
Petitioner's motion does not in all respects comply with the Tax Court Rules of Practice, but we get the point. Petitioner's motion does not identify a specific response or explain why any particular response is insufficient. He was given the opportunity provide such specificity at the hearing but failed to do so. Otherwise, the Court reviewed the requests for admissions and respondent's responses and finds that the responses are adequate. It follows and is
ORDERED that petitioner's motion is denied.
Petitioner's motion to compel the production of documents.
Again, petitioner's motion does not comply with the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, but the point of the motion was addressed at the hearing. It appears that documents requested by petitioner and otherwise properly within the scope of the Court's discovery rules have been provided to petitioner. That being so, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's motion is moot.
Petitioner's motion to sever and motions in limine.
These motions address matters and evidentiary objections that are more properly considered at trial. Premises considered, it is
ORDERED that the motions are denied.
Respondent's motion to sever.
The concerns raised by respondent in his motion to sever do not require the relief requested in the motion, That being so, it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion is denied.