Opinion
Case No. C-04-4264-RS
03-14-2013
SHASTA STRATEGIC INVESTMENT FUND, LLC; AND PRESIDIO GROWTH LLC (Tax Matters Partner), Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. And Related Cases
MARGARET TOUGH Latham & Watkins Attorney for Petitioners WILLIAM E. TAGGART, JR. Attorney for Intervenors Adkison, McNair, and Salmon Ventures JESSICA C. MUNK Law Office of David W. Wiechert Attorney for Intervenors Clarence Ventures, LLC and J. Paul Reddam ADAIR F. BOROUGHS Trial Attorney Tax Division, Department of Justice Attorney for Respondent MARTIN A. SCHAINBAUM Attorney for Intervenors Soward/Voltaire and Gonzales/Birch
DAVID A. HUBBERT
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
JAMES E. WEAVER
ADAIR F. BOROUGHS
Trial Attorneys
Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 683
Washington, DC 20044-0683
Tel: (202) 305-4929
Fax: (202) 307-2504
E-mail: James.E.Weaver@usdoj.gov
E-mail: Adair.F.Boroughs@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for United States of America
MELINDA L. HAAG (CaSBN 132612)
United States Attorney
Northern District of California
Of Counsel
Related to Case Nos. C-04-4309-RS, C-04-4398-
RS, C-04-4964-RS, C-05-1123-JW, C-05-1996-
RS, C-05-2835-RS, and C-05-3887-RS
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF PAGE
LIMITS
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, the United States requests that the Court extend the page limits for briefing on motions for summary judgment to 45 pages for initial motions and oppositions and 25 pages for replies. The other parties do not object to this request. In support of this request Respondent submits the following:
1. Under Local Rule 7-2(b), motions for summary judgement cannot exceed 25 pages in length, including a statement of facts and a memorandum of points and authorities.
2. Under Local Rule 7-4(b), opposition briefs may not exceed 25 pages of text and reply briefs may not exceed 15 pages of text.
3. Under the current scheduling order, motions for summary judgment must be filed by March 21, 2013.
4. These related cases all concern a structured transaction, the Bond-Linked Issue Premium Structure ("BLIPS"), that was designed for tax benefits and sold to numerous participants in the late 1990s. Petitioners contend that BLIPS involved a legitimate investment program. Respondent contends, among other things, the BLIPS transactions lacked economic substance and were shams.
5. Presentation of the United States' case for summary judgment in this matter will include an involved Statement of Facts regarding (a) the nature of the BLIPS program, (b) a description of the various components of the program, (c) a description of how the program was implemented and (d) an economic and financial analysis of the program, as applied to these Petitioners. In addition, this case will require legal briefing on the procedural posture of this case, the substance of the transaction, and a penalty analysis under 26 U.S.C. § 6662. Due to the complexity of the BLIPS transactions, the United States expects this briefing to exceed the 25-page limit under local rules.
6. Therefore, the United States requests that the Court extend the page limit for summary judgment motions in this matter, from 25 pages to 45 pages, so that it can fully present its case for summary judgment.
7. In fairness and to save the Court time from having to rule on three separate requests for page limit extensions, the United States also requests that the page limit for oppositions to summary judgment motions be extended from 25 to 45 pages and that the page limit for reply briefs be extended from 15 to 25 pages.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AND STIPULATED by the parties, subject to an order of the Court that:
(A) Motions for summary judgment may not exceed 45 pages of text;
(B) Briefs or memoranda in opposition to summary judgment may not exceed 45 pages of text;
(C) Reply briefs or memoranda may not exceed 25 pages of text. _____________________
MARGARET TOUGH
Latham & Watkins
Attorney for Petitioners
_____________________
WILLIAM E. TAGGART, JR.
Attorney for Intervenors
Adkison, McNair, and Salmon Ventures
_____________________
JESSICA C. MUNK
Law Office of David W. Wiechert
Attorney for Intervenors Clarence Ventures, LLC and J. Paul Reddam Respectfully submitted _____________________
ADAIR F. BOROUGHS
Trial Attorney
Tax Division, Department of Justice Attorney for Respondent
_____________________
MARTIN A. SCHAINBAUM
Attorney for Intervenors
Soward/Voltaire and Gonzales/Birch
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________
Richard Seeborg
United States District Judge