Bruce M. Crow - Page 8

                                        - 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.                                         
          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