Opinion
1072-22
08-26-2024
JAMES M. MEYER, TRANSFEREE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Ronald L. Buch Judge
Pending before the Court is the Commissioner's Motion for Extension of Time, filed August 23, 2024. The Commissioner seeks to extend a deadline to respond to interrogatories by 45 days, to October 14, 2024 (Columbus Day, a federal holiday).
Petitioner previously filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses, seeking to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production. As written, it appeared that much of what petitioner's discovery sought would be prohibited from disclosure by section 6103. At a hearing on the Motion to Compel, petitioner narrowed his requests substantially. As narrowed, most of the requests no longer ran afoul of section 6103. And the Court was left with the impression that the Commissioner had largely (if not entirely) satisfied the narrowed requests.
But one topic presented a unique issue. Petitioner sought documents relating to the possible criminal investigation of a non-party to this case under the theory that the criminal investigation may nullify consents to extend the period of limitations. See Transpac Drilling Venture 1982-12 v. Commissioner, 147 F.3d 221 (1998). The theory (as inferred by the Court) is that, if extensions of the period of limitations of the transferor are invalid, the period of limitations of the transferee may have lapsed. This would be because the period of limitations for a transferee is predicated on the period of limitations for the transferor. See section 6901(c). The Court suggested, and petitioner agreed, that a well-crafted interrogatory might resolve the issue. The following exchange occurred on the record:
THE COURT: Can you do this -- can you do this by a simple interrogatory?
MR. COMISKY: Yes. We can rephrase it in an interrogatory. We can do that.
THE COURT: Okay. Okay. I think we're going to dispose of the Transpac question by what I hope will be a well-crafted interrogatory.
In the Court's subsequent Order, we authorized no more than 5 interrogatories.
According to the Commissioner's Motion for Extension of Time, what followed was "5 interrogatories with subparts totally 12 different interrogatories." But see Rule 71(a) (when counting the number of interrogatories, each discrete subpart counts as a separate interrogatory).
The Commissioner's Motion for Extension of Time poses at least one conundrum, which we will address. The Commissioner seeks an extension of time, but according to the Motion, petitioner objects. Does the petitioner have some particularized, time-sensitive need for this information even though this case is not calendared for trial? Is the objection merely reflexive? The Court cannot know without ordering an objection. But by the time the Court allows for a complete airing of petitioner's objection, the current deadline will have come and gone, and we may well find ourselves past the extended deadline requested by the Commissioner.
We will slice through this Gordian Knot. We will grant Commissioner's motion, albeit to a date that is not a federal holiday. If the petitioner has a particularized need for the information before then, he may file a motion for reconsideration setting forth that particularized need. To that end, it is
ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion for Extension of Time, filed August 23, 2024, is granted in that the deadline to respond to the interrogatories authorized by the Court's Order dated August 6, 2024, is extended to October 11, 2024.