Opinion
8792-20
04-21-2023
DONALD W. THOMPSON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Albert G. Lauber, Judge.
This case, calendared for a special trial session in Atlanta, Georgia, beginning August 28, 2023, involves a charitable contribution deduction claimed by petitioner for a conservation easement in 2013, which generated carryover deductions on his 2016-2018 tax returns.
On March 24, 2023, petitioner filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Proposed Facts and Evidence Should Not be Accepted as Established Pursuant to Rule 91(f) (Rule 91(f) Motion). Petitioner appended to his Motion a draft First Stipulation of Facts with attached Exhibits. Petitioner contends that respondent has refused to "stipulate to any facts related to the prior owner and [p]etitioner's subsequent acquisition of the property" and has otherwise "refused to stipulate that the qualified appraisal contains any item required under the Code and Regulations." Petitioner requests that respondent show cause why the facts and evidence set forth in petitioner's proposed Stipulation, marked "Exhibit A," should not be deemed established for the purposes of this case.
By Order served March 28, 2023, we directed respondent to respond to petitioner's Rule 91(f) Motion by April 18, 2023. On April 18, 2023, respondent filed, at docket entry #103, a document bearing a cover sheet "Motion for Order to Show Cause." In this document respondent urges that the Rule 91(f) Motion should be denied. Later that day respondent filed, at docket entry #104, a duplicate document correctly labeled as his "Response to Motion for Order to Show Cause." Accordingly, we will direct the Clerk of the Court to strike the document at docket entry #103 as duplicative.
In his Response to the Rule 91(f) Motion, respondent contends that he has cooperated in good faith during the stipulation process and that his objections to petitioner's proposed Stipulation are reasonable. We agree, finding that petitioner is asking respondent to stipulate to factual and legal propositions that may be the subject of genuine dispute.
For example, petitioner requests that respondent stipulate to the fact that the appraisal at issue "did not involve a prohibited fee" and was performed by an appraiser who "was, at all times of preparing the [a]ppraisal . . . a 'qualified appraiser' as described in Treasury Regulation [s]ection 1.170A-13(c)(5)." But whether the appraisal was qualified and completed by a qualified appraiser appear to be debatable issues in this conservation easement case and thus are matters inappropriate for stipulation.
Petitioner also requests that respondent stipulate that "[p]etitioner's Form 8283 was attached to [p]etitioner's timely filed 2013 Form 1040." Respondent has made clear that he believes this to be a significant factual issue that remains in dispute. Respondent has issued informal and formal discovery seeking to determine whether a fully-completed Form 8283 was actually attached to petitioner's 2013 return. Petitioner has yet to provide the requested information, instead appending as Exhibit 19-J to his proposed Stipulation an undated Form 8283, marked "Copy," that is missing several required signatures. We find respondent's refusal to stipulate to this point reasonable.
Trial of this case is to begin in August 2023, and we expect comprehensive stipulations of fact to be filed before trial commences. The Court is not going to referee dueling proposed stipulations on a line-by-line basis. The Court expects the parties to confer in good faith and stipulate to all matters not reasonably in dispute. These stipulations shall include as exhibits all documents agreed to be authentic. To the extent the parties cannot agree on a textual paragraph to accompany a particular documentary exhibit, they shall simply include the exhibit with minimal accompanying text.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that the document filed at docket entry #103 is hereby stricken from the record as duplicative. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Proposed Facts and Evidence Should Not be Accepted as Established Pursuant to Rule 91(f) filed March 24, 2023, is denied.