Free Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:06-cv-00407-ECH

Document 120

Filed 08/21/2008

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS No. 06-407 T (into which have been consolidated Nos. 06-408 T, 06-409 T, 06-410 T, 06-411 T, 06-810 T, 06-811 T) Judge Emily C. Hewitt (E-Filed: August 21, 2008) ALPHA I, L.P., BY AND THROUGH ROBERT SANDS, A NOTICE PARTNER ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) BETA PARTNERS, L.L.C., BY AND THROUGH ) ROBERT SANDS, A NOTICE PARTNER ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) ) R, R, M & C PARTNERS, L.L.C., BY AND ) THROUGH R, R, M & C GROUP, L.P., A ) NOTICE PARTNER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________)

06-407 T

06-408 T

06-409 T

Case 1:06-cv-00407-ECH

Document 120

Filed 08/21/2008

Page 2 of 5

) R, R, M & C GROUP, L.P., BY AND THROUGH ) ROBERT SANDS, A NOTICE PARTNER ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) ) CWC PARTNERSHIP I, BY AND THROUGH ) TRUST FBO ZACHARY STERN U/A FIFTH G. ) ANDREW STERN AND MARILYN SANDS, ) TRUSTEES, A NOTICE PARTNER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) ) MICKEY MANAGEMENT, L.P., BY AND ) THROUGH MARILYN SANDS, A NOTICE ) PARTNER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________)

06-410 T

06-411 T

06-810 T

Case 1:06-cv-00407-ECH

Document 120

Filed 08/21/2008

Page 3 of 5

M, L, R & R, BY AND THROUGH RICHARD E. ) SANDS, TAX MATTERS PARTNER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________)

06-811 T

UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN EXCESS OF TWENTY PAGES The United States moves for leave to file its reply brief to the plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry # 117) in excess of the 20-page limitation found in Ct. Fed. Cl. R. 5.3. The United States request leave to file a reply brief of 30 pages. Plaintiffs' response to the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment raises numerous arguments that must be addressed by the United States. In particular, the plaintiffs question the constitutionality and validity of Treas. Reg. § 1.701-2. Approximately 8 pages of this reply brief is devoted to the United States' response to this challenge. The plaintiffs also asserted a reasonable cause defense to the application of penalties. This defense was raised for the first time in plaintiffs' response and 6 pages of the United States' reply were needed to fully address this issue. Responding to just these two newly raised issues required nearly 2/3 of the United States' allowed page limitation. Accordingly, only few pages remain to properly address plaintiffs' remaining arguments regarding § 752 and the CRUT issues. An extension of the page limitation will allow the United States to properly address the arguments briefed by the plaintiffs in their Response to the United States' Motion and will provide helpful information to this Court in analyzing the legal issues presented in the motion, responses and replies.

Case 1:06-cv-00407-ECH

Document 120

Filed 08/21/2008

Page 4 of 5

Plaintiffs have informed the United States that they oppose this request for extension of page limits. The United States notes that on September 5, 2007, the plaintiffs requested leave (Docket # 60) to file a reply brief in excess of twenty pages to the United States' Response to Plaintiffs' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. As usual, the United States was unopposed to this request. The basis for plaintiffs' request then is similar to the basis for the United States' request now. There, the plaintiffs wished to address the validity and applicability of Treas. Reg. § 1.752-6. Here, the United States needs to address the constitutionality and validity of Treas. Reg. § 1.701-2, which the plaintiffs have asserted is invalid. Plaintiffs are not prejudiced by the page limit extension and their opposition to the request is meritless and petty. The United States requests that the Court grant the United States' Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief in Excess of Twenty Pages and allow the United States to file a brief not exceeding 30 pages. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Thomas M. Herrin THOMAS M. HERRIN Attorney of Record Tax Division Department of Justice 717 N. Harwood, Suite 400 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 880-9745 / (214) 880-9762 (214) 880-9742 (FAX) JOHN A. DiCICCO Deputy Assistant Attorney General STEVEN I. FRAHM Acting Chief, Court of Federal Claims Section LOUISE HYTKEN Chief, Southwestern Civil Trial Section MICHELLE C. JOHNS Trial Attorney

Case 1:06-cv-00407-ECH

Document 120

Filed 08/21/2008

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that service of the foregoing United States' Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief in Excess of Twenty Pages has been made on August 21, 2008 via the Court's CM/ECF system to: Lewis S. Wiener Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan 1275 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 /s/ Thomas M. Herrin THOMAS M. HERRIN