Theodore S. Prokopov and Georgine O. Prokopov - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          determined that petitioners failed to report $72,768.957 of Mrs.            
          Prokopov's distributive share of trust income for 1992.                     
          Discussion                                                                  
               Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and                
          avoid unnecessary and expensive trials.  Florida Peach Corp. v.             
          Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988).  It is appropriate if the            
          pleadings and other materials show that there is no genuine issue           
          as to any material fact, and a decision may be rendered as a                
          matter of law.  Rule 121(b); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.                
          527, 529 (1985).  The moving party bears the burden of proving              
          that summary judgment is appropriate.  Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,            
          477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Espinoza v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 412,            
          416 (1982).  When confronted with a motion for summary judgment,            
          the Court will construe factual inferences in a manner most                 
          favorable to the opposing party.  Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85             
          T.C. 812, 821 (1985).                                                       
               The sole issue presented by this case involves Oak Den's               
          adjusted basis on the date it was sold to RFSH.8  Petitioners               
          maintain that section 1014(a) and (b) operate to give Oak Den a             


               7In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that               
          petitioners failed to report $77,958 of Mrs. Prokopov's                     
          distributive share of trust income for 1992.  Respondent now                
          concedes that the correct amount is $72,768.95.                             
               8In their response to the Court's order, petitioners                   
          introduce for the first time a contention that a portion of Mrs.            
          Ogden's estate was subjected to double taxation.  We decline to             
          address this argument as it is not now properly before us.                  




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011