Opinion
24703-21
01-11-2024
NORTH DONALD LA PROPERTY, LLC, NORTH DONALD LA INVESTORS, LLC, TAX MATTERS PARTNER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Albert G. Lauber Judge.
This case is calendared for trial at an initial special session of the Court beginning September 9, 2024, and a second special session beginning October 7, 2024, both in New Orleans, Louisiana. The case involves a charitable contribution deduction claimed by North Donald LA Property, LLC (NDLA). Respondent issued NDLA a notice of final partnership administrative adjustment (FPAA), disallowing this and other deductions and determining fraud and accuracy-related penalties.
On December 5, 2023, petitioner filed, at docket entry #101, a Second Request for Admissions (Second Request). On January 3, 2024, respondent filed, at docket entry #107, a Response to the Second Request. That same day petitioner filed, at docket entry #108, a Motion to Review the Sufficiency of Answers or Objections to its Second Request.
On January 9, 2024, petitioner filed, at docket entry #109, an unopposed Motion to Strike, representing that it had mistakenly attached the wrong exhibits to the document at docket entry #108. Accordingly, petitioner filed, at docket entry #110, an identical version of its Motion to Review, but with the correct exhibits attached. In that corrected Motion petitioner asks (among other things) that we deem admitted the contents of paragraphs ##14, 26, 52, 53, 59, 60, 61, 64, 67, 69, 75, 120, and 123 of its Second Request.
After carefully reviewing the filings, we believe that the parties should be able to resolve the matters addressed in petitioner's Motion. Petitioner's requests mainly involve straightforward factual questions, but include terminology that respondent not unreasonably views as vague or ambiguous. For example, in paragraphs 64, 67, 69, and 75, petitioner asks respondent to admit to several matters relating to "the
Appraisal," including that it was "timely prepared," that it "contained the date of the expected contribution date [sic]," and that it "contained a detailed description" of the NDLA Property. Respondent takes issue with the term "Appraisal" because it is his position that the document "is not a qualified appraisal." Taking care not to over-admit anything, respondent does admit (for example) that "a document purporting to be an appraisal was prepared" and that it "contained a description of the NDLA Property." Similarly, in paragraphs 14 and 16, petitioner asks respondent to admit that the NDLA Property contains a "pond" and is "visible" from a specific road. While finding these terms "vague and undefined," respondent does admit that "water exists on the property" and that, "depending on visibility, weather conditions, and a person's eyesight, portions of the NDLA Property may be visible from certain portions" of the road in question.
Discovery must be proportional to the needs of the litigation, see Tax Court Rule 70(b)(1), and this particular discovery squabble strikes us as pointless. The parties should be able to stipulate most of these factual questions if they negotiate the wording in a reasonable manner. See Tax Court Rule 91(a) (requiring the parties to stipulate, to the fullest extent possible, the truth of facts and the authenticity of documents as to which there should be no reasonable dispute). We will therefore deny the Motion at this time. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on stipulations of fact after fair-minded negotiation, either may file an appropriate motion or request that the Court convene a teleconference with the parties.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Strike, filed January 9, 2024, is granted in that the document filed January 3, 2024, at docket entry #108, is stricken from the record of this case. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Review the Sufficiency of Answers or Objections to Request for Admissions, filed January 9, 2024, at docket entry #110, is denied.