Rosemary V. Cocozza - Page 6

                                                 - 6 -                                                   

            together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no                                  
            genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be                             
            rendered as a matter of law."  Rule 121(b); Anderson v. Liberty                              
            Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986); 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).                                             
                  Because the issue is purely legal, this case is ripe for                               
            summary judgment.  Timeworn discredited arguments that wages are                             
            not taxable income suffice, as an alternative to dismissal, to                               
            justify summary judgment for respondent.  Coleman v.                                         
            Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986) (wages not income);                                
            Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766, 772-774 (1984) (wages not                                
            income), affd. per curiam 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986); Cornell                              
            v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-370 (wages not income), see also                            
            Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).  There is                              
            no need for us to spend any time on the arguments in petitioner’s                            
            “Memorandum of Law”.  Petitioner should read the foregoing cases,                            
            if she has not already done so.  We therefore grant respondent’s                             
            motion for summary judgment, sustaining all of respondent’s                                  
            determinations, and deny petitioner’s motion.                                                
                  We now raise sua sponte whether we should impose a penalty                             
            under section 6673(a) against petitioner on the ground that                                  
            petitioner instituted or maintained the proceeding primarily for                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011