Robert C. Sodoma and Gwen A. Sodoma - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         

               In sum, viewing the facts in a light most favorable to                 
          petitioners, Kroh v. Commissioner, supra, we conclude that                  
          respondent has made a prima facie case to support her motion for            
          summary judgment and that petitioners have failed to come forward           
          with countervailing assertions having sufficient specificity to             
          cause us to hold that there is any material issue of fact which             
          requires a trial.  Under these circumstances, respondent is                 
          entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.  Rule 121(d);              
          Hibernia Nat. Bank v. Carner, 997 F.2d 94, 98 (5th Cir. 1993);              
          Abramo v. Commissioner, supra.7                                             
                                        Respondent's motion for summary               
                                   judgment will be granted and decision              
                                   will be entered for respondent.                    

          7  See also Daniels v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-591.                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  

Last modified: May 25, 2011