- 10 -
affg. T.C. Memo. 1981-466; Ratana v. Commissioner, 662 F.2d 220,
224 (4th Cir. 1981), affg. in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo.
1980-353; Sanders v. United States, supra at 166.
Petitioner has alleged certain facts for the purpose of
demonstrating that she neither knew nor had reason to know of the
substantial understatement arising from the overstatement of cost
of goods sold. After considering the facts alleged, petitioner’s
state of mind is still not established. Her state of mind is
clearly an issue of material fact that is not ripe for summary
adjudication. To resolve this issue, evidence will be required;
i.e., direct testimony and cross-examination. The facts and
circumstances relating to this issue have not yet been adequately
developed, making this issue inappropriate for summary judgment.
See Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985); Hoeme v.
Commissioner, 63 T.C. 18, 20 (1974).
Finally, petitioner has not set forth facts sufficient to
properly address or resolve in her favor the factors we consider
in resolving the issue of whether it would be inequitable to hold
her liable for the deficiency.
For the reasons stated herein, petitioner’s motion for
summary judgment is denied.
An appropriate order will be
issued.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: May 25, 2011