Dvorak v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Rules 70 and 72, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. -- Petitioner filed a motion under Rule 72 for production of third-party affidavits taken by special agents of respondent. Held, the affidavits were not prepared in anticipation of litigation and are accordingly not protected by the "work product" doctrine. P. T. & L. Construction Co., 63 T.C. 404 (1974), followed.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Wiles, Judge:
Respondent has objected to petitioner’s motion under Rule 72, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure,1 for production of three affidavits of third parties taken by special agents of respondent.
This case began when the Intelligence Division of the Internal Revenue Service investigated Milton N. Baromich (hereinafter Baromich) for filing false income tax returns for 1963 through 1965. During those years, Baromich was trustee of Calumet Township, Lake County, Ind. He failed to report kickbacks received from grocery store owners handling poor relief food orders issued by…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Southern Railway Company v. Carl Talmadge LanhamCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
- P. T. & L. Constr. Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1974
- De Bruce v. Pennsylvania R. Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1947
- Bowles v. Safeway Stores, Inc.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1945
- Abel Investment Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1971
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Rutter v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1983
- Industrial Electric Sales & Service, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1976
- Barger v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1976
- Barger v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1976
- Dvorak v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1975
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.