BW

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7

WALTER C . ANDERSON,

Petitioner ,

v. ) Docket No . 20364-07 .

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE ,

Respondent

O R D E R

On April 22, 2010, respondent filed a "Motion for

Protective Order", asking the Court to order that he need not
respond to petitioner Walter C . Anderson's document requests .
On April 26, 2010, the Court ordered Mr . Anderson to file a
response, and stated :

The Court is inclined to grant respondent's motion .

Mr . Anderson has filed a motion for summary judgment,
indicating his belief that the case can be decided on
undisputed facts (and without further discovery) . It
remains to be seen what precisely the IRS will say in
its anticipated cross-motion . If respondent files a
motion making assertions that implicate the documents
that Mr . Anderson has requested, then he could at that
time file a motion to compel under Rule 104(b) and a
motion for a continuance under Rule 122(e) . I f
Mr . Anderson is willing to proceed on this basis, he
may so state in his response . If he believes this
approach would not be expedient, then his response
should explain why .

On April 26, 2010 (the same day as the Court's order) ,

Mr . Anderson served a combined "Petitioner's Response to Motion
for Protective Order and Motion to Compel Discovery", in which
he asks the Court to order respondent to respond to his
discovery requests (to an extent greater than respondent has
already responded) .

However, Mr . Anderson did not address the question that the

Court raised in its order of April 26, 2010 (which he had no t

SERVED May 13 2010

 - 2 -

seen when he served his document on that same day) . That is,
Mr . Anderson has not shown why it would not be expedient first
to decide petitioner's motion for summary judgment (and possibly
respondent's anticipated cross-motion for summary judgment) on
the basis of agreed and undisputed facts that do not require
further discovery . That in fact does seem to be the most
expedient course .

Moreover, Mr . Anderson's opposition and cross-motion

reveals a persistent fallacy . He states (at 1-2) :

I personal[ly] have been accused of fraud . * * *

Each day that goes by without a resolution is painful
and difficult .

However, Mr . Anderson not only was "accused" but also pleaded

guilty to the crime of tax evasion with respect to the years
1998 and 1999 . The "resolution" of this matter therefor e
already occurred in September 2006 when the District Court
accepted his plea and entered against him a conviction of guilt .
The Tax Court has no power to overturn a criminal conviction,
and we have already held (in our Memorandum Opinion issued in
this case on February 24, 2009) that Mr . Anderson's criminal
conviction collaterally estops him from disputing the IRS's
civil fraud determination for those years . The parties' cross-
motions for summary judgment on the remaining issues in this
case will not be an occasion to revisit that issue . Though it
may be painful and difficult, Mr . Anderson's fraud is a settled
matter for purposes of this tax deficiency suit .

It is therefor e

ORDERED that respondent's motion for a protective order is

granted . It is furthe r

ORDERED that petitioner's motion to compel discovery is

denied . The denial, however, is without prejudice t o
Mr . Anderson's filing a motion to compel under Rule 104(b) and a
motion for a continuance under Rule 122(e) if respondent files a
motion making assertions that implicate the documents tha t
Mr . Anderson has requested .

(Signed) David Gustafson

Judg e

Dated : Washington, D .C .
May 12, 2010