- 12 -
Discussion
As the issue concerns the Court's jurisdiction over this
case, we first consider respondent's Summary Judgment Motion
pursuant to Rule 121(b) with respect to whether the 3-year period
of limitations for assessment has expired because the Partnership
allegedly elected treatment under the unified audit provisions of
sections 6221 through 6233 for the taxable years 1992 and 1993
and respondent did not honor such election. Respondent states in
the Summary Judgment Motion that this issue was raised informally
by petitioner during the local Appeals Office consideration of
this case.
Summary judgment or partial summary judgment may be granted
if the pleadings and other materials demonstrate that no genuine
issue exists as to any of the material facts and that a decision
may be rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(b); Sundstrand
Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965
(7th Cir. 1994); Zaentz v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 753, 754 (1988);
Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). The moving
party bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue
of material fact, and factual inferences will be read in a manner
most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Dahlstrom
v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985); Jacklin v.
Commissioner, 79 T.C. 340, 344 (1982).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011