Vlcko v. United States

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: May 27, 2025
• Docket: 5:23-cv-00192
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION

VLADIMIR J. VLCKO & PAMELA VLCKO,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No: 5:23-cv-192-GAP-PRL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

ORDER This action, which arises out of Plaintiffs’ claim for an income tax refund for multiple tax years, is currently before the Court on the unopposed motion of the United States to compel Baker Tilly US, LLP (“Baker Tilly”) to respond to the United States’ subpoena duces tecum for records relating to the tax and financial circumstances of WV Urban Developments, LLC (“WV Urban”). (Doc. 53). The motion recites that, in accordance with Local Rule 3.01(g), counsel for the United States conferred with counsel for Baker Tilly, and counsel for Plaintiffs, who each stated they do not oppose the requested relief. Rather, Baker Tilly has objected for the following reasons: The Subpoena seeks documents which are classified as tax records. 26 U.S.C. § 7216 and 26 C.F.R. §§ 301.7216-2 and 301.7216-3 prohibit the disclosure of tax records without a court order or taxpayer consent. At this time, Baker Tilly has not received an order from a court or a signed authorization from the taxpayers allowing the disclosure of tax records associated with this case. Therefore, before Baker Tilly can produce documents, we require either a signed authorization from the taxpayer(s) or a court order specifically allowing the production of the requested tax records. (Doc. 53-5). Motions to compel discovery are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. See Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729, 731 (11th Cir. 1984). “The overall purpose of discovery under the Federal Rules is to require the disclosure of all relevant information so that the ultimate resolution of disputed issues in any civil action may be based on a full and accurate understanding of the true facts, and therefore embody a fair and just result.” Oliver v. City of Orlando, No. 6:06-cv-1671, 2007 WL 3232227, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2007). As is confirmed by the exhibits to the United States’ motion, Baker Tilly’s objection arises out of potential penalties imposed under 26 U.S.C. § 7216, but Baker Tilly does not otherwise oppose the relief requested. Rather, Baker Tilly requires a court order to provide the disclosure. Accordingly, upon due consideration, the United States’ motion to compel (Doc. 53) is GRANTED. Within 30 days of the entry date of this Order, Baker Tilly shall respond to the United States’ subpoena duces tecum for records relating to the tax and financial circumstances of WV Urban Developments, LLC. DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on May 27, 2025. A. PHILIP R. LAMMENS United States Magistrate Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

-2-