William Richard Baker, Jr. - Page 4




                                        - 4 -                                         
          and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  FPL                
          Group, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74-75 (2001).             
          In all cases, the evidence must be viewed in the light most                 
          favorable to the nonmoving party, petitioner.  Blanton v.                   
          Commissioner, 94 T.C. 491, 494 (1990).                                      
               Petitioner has failed to respond to respondent’s motion for            
          partial summary judgment and this Court’s order dated August 24,            
          2001, which states:  “That petitioner shall, on or before                   
          September 24, 2001, file a response to the above motion for                 
          partial summary judgment.”  When a motion for summary judgment is           
          made, the nonmoving party cannot rely upon the allegations or               
          denials in its pleading but must demonstrate with specific facts            
          that there is a genuine issue for trial.  King v. Commissioner,             
          87 T.C. 1213, 1217 (1986); Shepherd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.             
          1997-555.  Under Rule 121(d), if the adverse party, petitioner              
          herein, does not respond to the motion for summary judgment, then           
          this Court may enter a decision where appropriate against that              
          party.  King v. Commissioner, supra at 1217; Shepherd v.                    
          Commissioner, supra.  We could enter a decision against                     
          petitioner without elaboration; however, we shall address the               
          contentions petitioner raised in his petition and in the                    
          interrogatories.                                                            
               In his petition, petitioner claimed that the self-employment           
          tax deficiency was erroneously included in the notice of                    






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011