- 7 -
The Court will not resolve disagreements over relevant
factual issues in a summary judgment proceeding. 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
properly raised by the parties." 10A Wright et al., Federal
Practice and Procedure, Civil 2d, sec. 2725, at 93 (2d ed. 1983).
In this regard, the Court previously has denied motions for
summary judgment where intent is a material issue in the case;
such an inference of fact is to be drawn only at trial. Oakland
Hills Country Club v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 35, 40 (1980); Hoeme
v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 18, 20 (1974). The value of a trial
with complete opportunity to view the demeanor of the parties and
their evidence is obvious. Hoeme v. Commissioner, supra at 20.
Rule 121(d) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
When a motion for summary judgment is made and
supported as provided in this Rule, an adverse party
may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of
such party’s pleading, but such party’s response, by
affidavits or as otherwise provided in this Rule, must
set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not
so respond, then a decision, if appropriate, may be
entered against such party.
See King v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1213, 1217 (1986).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011