This case is before us on respondent's motion for summary
judgment under Rule 121.2 The issue for consideration is whether
petitioners may exclude from gross income, under section
104(a)(2), amounts received from Robert C. Sodoma's employer in
consideration for signing a general release and covenant not to
sue agreement.
The disposition of a motion for summary judgment under Rule
121 is controlled by the following principles: (1) The moving
party must show the absence of dispute as to any material fact
and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law; (2) the
factual materials and the inferences to be drawn from them must
be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the
motion; (3) the party opposing the motion cannot rest upon mere
allegations or denials, but must set forth specific facts showing
there is a genuine issue for trial. Rule 121; Brotman v.
Commissioner, 105 T.C. 141 (1995).
Respondent's motion is based on a stipulation of facts and
attached exhibits which are incorporated herein by this
reference.
At the time the petition was filed, petitioners resided in
Austin, Texas.
Prior to and during a portion of 1993, Mr. Sodoma was
employed by the International Business Machines Corporation
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and
all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011