- 2 -
filed an objection to the motion, and we find that such an
objection is unnecessary.2
By statutory notice dated December 13, 1994, respondent
determined a deficiency in petitioners’ Federal income tax for
the year ended December 31, 1989, of $294,062 and a penalty under
section 6662(a) in the amount of $58,812.
Petitioners, Jana K. Fason and Stewart E. Fason (hereinafter
petitioners or petitioner and Mr. Fason, respectively), resided
in Lake Worth, Florida, on February 21, 1995, the date the
petition was filed. In their petition, petitioners asserted,
among other things, that they properly computed the cost of goods
sold reported on their 1989 Federal income tax return, and that
the bad debt deduction claimed on their 1989 return was
allowable. On December 11, 1995, petitioner moved for leave to
amend the petition, so she could claim innocent spouse status
pursuant to section 6013(e). We granted the motion. On February
28, 1996, petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment.
2 Under Rule 121, when a motion for summary judgment is made
and supported as provided in the Rule, an adverse party may not
rest upon mere allegations or denials in his pleadings, but his
response by affidavits or as otherwise provided in the Rule must
set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of
fact for trial, and if he does not so respond, a decision, if
appropriate, may be entered against him. Rule 121(d). However,
the opposing party need not come forth with affidavits or other
documentary evidence unless the moving party makes a prima facie
showing of the absence of a factual issue. Shiosaki v.
Commissioner, 61 T.C. 861 (1974). Here, we are not satisfied
that the moving party has made a prima facie case. (See
discussion infra.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011