UNITED STATES TAX COURT 
                                                                  WASHINGTON , D.C. 20017 



STEPHANIE PATRIOT,                      )
                                        )
    Petitioner,                         )
                                        )
v.                                      )             Docket No.  28xxx-07 
                                        )
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,       )
                                        )
    Respondent.                         )
________________________________________)

Order to Compel Discovery

This case is calendared fo r trial at the Trial Session of the Court commencing November 17, 2008, in Las Vegas , Nevada . On October 6, 2008, respondent filed a Motion to Review Sufficiency of Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s Request for Admissions( Motion to Review) and a Motion to Compel Responses to Respondent’s Interrogatories (Motion to Compel), in which respondent seeks orders directing petitioner to serve an amended response to Respondent’s Requests for Admission and compelling petitioner to answer Respondent’s Interrogatories, respectively. Respondent’s Requests for Admission and Respondent’s Interrogatories were simultaneoulsly served upon petitioner on August 8, 2008. Respondent’s Motion to Compel also seeks sanctions under Rule 104, Tax court Rules of Practice & Procedure.

On September 2, 2008, petitioner served upon respondent a Response to Respondent’s Request for Admissions and a Response to Respondent’s Interrogatories. Therein, petitioner declined to respond to 25 of the 30 requests for admission and all of the interrogatories “on the grounds that this could lead to self incrimination. The I.R.S. claims they could prosecute me for not filing.” On September 16, 2008, Respondent sent a letter to petitioner concerning her responses to the admission requests and interrogatories, advising that there was no criminal investigation into any fo petitioner’s taxable years and that accordingly the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was not available to petitioner. Petitioner Responded in a September 25, 2008 letter, claiming that “[t]he potential for prosecution exists” and reiterating her position her Fifth Amendment privilege relieved her of any obligation to respond. Respondent’s Motion to Review and Motion to Compel followed.

In his motions, respondent represents that petitioner is not presently under ccriminal investigation by respondent’s agents, has not previously been criminally investigat by them, and that respondent’s criminal investigations division does not anticipate any criminal investigation into petitioner’s 2001, 2002, 2003,3004, or 2005 taxable years. Petitioner has offered no evidence to the contrary.

The protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is “confined to instances where the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer.” Hoffman v. United States , 341 U. S. 479, 486 (1951). The witness must be subject to a real danger of self-incrimination, not merely remote and speculative possibilities.

Burns v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 706, 707 (1981); see also Wilkinson v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 633 (1979); Jarrell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1994-77.

Petitioner has not shown that she has any reasonable basis to fear criminal prosecution or to be concerned about self-incrimination. Burns, involving a taxpayer’s refusal to respond to requests for admission on Fifth Amendment grounds, is therefore directly on point and compels a decision on the instant motions in respondent’s favor. We accordingly conclude that petitioner’s Fifth Amendment objections are meritless and that she must respond to the matters with respect to which she has raised those objections.

On the basis of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that petitioner shall, on or before October 24,2008, submit to the Court and serve upon respondent an amended response to Response to Respondent’s Requests for Admission, served upn petitioner on August 8, 2008, in which petitioner admis or denies the matters to which she raised a Fifth Amendment objection. It is further

Ordered that petitioner shall, on or before October 24, 2008, submit to the Court and serve upon respondent answers to Respondent’s Interrogatories, served upon petitioner ib August 8, 2008.

Action on respondent’s request for sanctions under Rule 104 in his Motion to compel will be held in abeyance until after October 2008.

Dated October 10, 2008