- 5 -
Summary adjudication is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials of phantom factual issues.
Kroh v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 383, 390 (1992); Shiosaki v.
Commissioner, 61 T.C. 861, 862 (1974). A decision on the merits
of a taxpayer's claim can be made by way of summary adjudication
"if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions,
admissions, and any other acceptable materials, together with the
affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of
law." Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure Rule 121(b).
Because summary adjudication decides an issue against a party
before trial, we grant such a remedy cautiously and sparingly,
and only after carefully ascertaining that the moving party has
met all the requirements for summary adjudication. Associated
Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 6 (1945); Espinoza v.
Commissioner, 78 T.C. 412, 416 (1982).
The Court will not resolve disagreements over material
factual issues through summary adjudication. Espinoza v.
Commissioner, supra at 416. The burden of proving that there is
no genuine issue of material fact is on the moving party, and
factual inferences are viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654,
655 (1962); Kroh v. Commissioner, supra at 390. A fact is
material if it "tends to resolve any of the issues that have been
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011