- 2 -
pursuant to Rule 121.1 Charles filed his motion on November 20,
1995, followed by the filing of a supplement to his motion on
December 1, 1995, and second supplement to his motion on December
29, 1995 (this motion and the first and second supplement will be
referred to hereinafter as Motion 1). Martha filed her motion on
December 13, 1995 (this motion will be referred to hereinafter as
Motion 2). Respondent has not filed an objection to the motions.
However, respondent has filed objections on five different
occasions in response to petitioners' prior motions for
dismissal.2 Those motions raised arguments similar to those
raised in the motions presently before the Court. We do not deem
it necessary for respondent to file an objection.
Respondent determined deficiencies in and additions to
petitioners' Federal income taxes as follows:
Additions to Tax
Sec. Sec. Sec.
Year Deficiency 6661 6653(b)(1)1 6653(b)(1)(A)1
1985 $329,911 $82,478 $164,956 --
1986 90,590 17,409 -- $52,226
1 All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the taxable years in issue, unless otherwise indicated.
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 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011