- 8 -
notes and contracts of sale in question, as well as any and all
property or property interests that petitioner received in
exchange for said items; (2) the dates that such items were
exchanged; and (3) the identity of the party engaging in such
like-kind exchange with petitioner.
Petitioner failed to properly respond to the Court's Order
dated September 7, 1995. In particular, on September 27, 1995,
petitioner filed a Motion to Reconsider with respect to said
order, which motion was denied on October 4, 1995. Despite the
inadequacy of petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, it is now
evident that petitioner's primary theory in this case is that any
amounts paid to him in the form of a bank or payroll check
constitute corporate stock subject to section 83 and that an
exchange of his labor for property (such as a payroll check) does
not result in taxable income.
On October 18, 1995, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Jurisdiction, which was frivolous. Petitioner's
motion was denied October 19, 1995.
Discussion
Rule 121 provides that either party may move for summary
adjudication upon all or any of the legal issues in dispute if
the moving party can establish that there is no genuine issue as
to any material fact, and a decision may be rendered as a matter
of law. Thus, respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is to be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011