Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-08-02400/USCOURTS-ca6-08-02400-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Appellee
Tomoko Homza
Appellant

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 10a0193n.06

No. 08-2400

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

TOMOKO HOMZA,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTE R N A L

REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

 /

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES TAX COURT

OPINION

BEFORE: KEITH, CLAY, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Petitioner, Tomoko Homza, appeals the July 23, 2008 order from the

United States Tax Court granting summary judgment to Respondent, the Commissioner of Internal

Revenue, as to Petitioner’s tax liability and assessing penalties on the taxpayer. Petitioner

specifically is appealing the denial of her motion to compel discovery in the Tax Court, claiming that

the documents requested were statutorily required to be produced as part of the process of calculating

her tax deficiencies and therefore were discoverable.

Petitioner filed two separate petitions with the Tax Court seeking review of determinations

by the IRS Office of Appeals concerning her unpaid tax liability in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. The

first petition, Case No. 10719-06L, was filed June 6, 2006 concerning the tax years of 2000, 2001,

 Case: 08-2400 Document: 00619865553 Filed: 03/25/2010 Page: 1
No. 08-2400

2

and 2002. Petitioner then filed a second petition, Case No. 3494-07L, on February 17, 2007

concerning the 2003 tax year. The Tax Court consolidated the petitions for opinion only, and

proceedings continued for both petitions. TheCommissioner moved for summary judgment on both

petitions, which was granted. In the same order, the Tax Court denied Petitioner’s motion to compel

discovery. This timely appeal followed.

This Court reviews for abuse of discretion the claim that a motion to compel discovery

should have been granted prior to an order granting summary judgment. Abercrombie & Fitch

Stores, Inc. v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., 280 F.3d 619, 627 (6th Cir. 2002); March v. Levine,

249 F.3d 462, 473 (6th Cir. 2001). In a case involving a collection-due-process hearing where the

taxpayer does not challenge the underlying tax liability, the Tax Court and, in turn this Court,

reviews the determination of IRS Office of Appeals for abuse of discretion. Living Care Alternatives

of Utica, Inc. v. United States, 411 F.3d 621, 626 (6th Cir. 2005).

After consideration of the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the relevant law, this

Court is not persuaded that the Tax Court erred in granting summary judgment to the Commissioner

or in denying Petitioner’s motion to compel discovery. Because the Tax Court thoroughly articulated

the reasoning that supports its order, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this Court would

be duplicative and serve no useful purpose.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the Tax Court upon the reasoning set forth by

that court in its opinion and order filed on July 23, 2008.

 Case: 08-2400 Document: 00619865553 Filed: 03/25/2010 Page: 2