- 16 -
petitioners have alleged no specific facts showing that the ITO
payment was allocable to tort or tort type damages for personal
injuries or sickness.
Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to petitioners,
Blanton v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. at 494, we conclude that
respondent has made a prima facie case that petitioner did not
release any tort or tort type claim in exchange for the ITO
payment. Petitioners have failed to offer countervailing
assertions having sufficient specificity to cause us to conclude
that there is any genuine issue of material fact which requires a
trial. We have considered all of the parties' remaining
arguments and find them to be without merit. Under these
circumstances, respondent is entitled to summary judgment as a
matter of law. Rule 121(d); Abramo v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 154,
164 (1982). As petitioners' gross income is increased in the
amount of $74,131.29, we sustain respondent's disallowance of
itemized deductions in the amount of $966.08 as an automatic
adjustment.
To reflect the foregoing,
Respondent's motion for
summary judgment will be granted,
and decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Last modified: May 25, 2011