Irene Eisenberg - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         

          Discussion3                                                                 
               Rule 121 provides for summary judgment on legal issues in              
          controversies where there is no genuine issue of material fact.             
          Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd.            
          17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527,           
          528-529 (1985); Jacklin v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 340, 344 (1982).           
          The burden is on the moving party to show that it is entitled to            
          summary judgment and that the matter may be decided on the basis            
          of the documents before this Court.  Espinoza v. Commissioner, 78           
          T.C. 412, 416 (1982); Gulfstream Land & Dev. Corp. v.                       
          Commissioner, 71 T.C. 587, 596 (1979); Giordano v. Commissioner,            
          63 T.C. 462 (1975).  Summary judgment is intended to expedite               
          litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials.  Florida             
          Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988).                       
               Section 2501 imposes, generally, a tax on gifts of property            
          by an individual.  The gift is measured by the value of the                 
          property passing from the donor; if the gift is made in property,           
          the property's value at the date of the gift is considered the              
          amount of the gift.  Sec. 2512(a).  Fair market value is                    
          determined to be the price at which the property would change               
          hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither party           


               3Both parties have presented objections to individual                  
          stipulations on the grounds of relevance.  We find them to be               
          without merit and/or irrelevant to the decision of this case.               
          Consequently, we do not address these matters.                              




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011