- 8 -
Discussion
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials of phantom factual issues.
Kroh v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 383, 390 (1992); Shiosaki v.
Commissioner, 61 T.C. 861, 862 (1974). Summary judgment is
appropriate "if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories,
depositions, admissions, and any other acceptable materials,
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). Because summary
adjudication decides an issue against a party before trial, we
grant such a remedy cautiously and sparingly and only after
carefully ascertaining that the moving party has met all the
requirements for summary adjudication. Associated Press v.
United States, 326 U.S. 1, 6 (1945); Espinoza v. Commissioner,
78 T.C. 412, 416 (1982).
The Court will not resolve disagreements over material
factual issues through summary adjudication. Espinoza v.
Commissioner, supra at 416. The moving party bears the burden
of proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and
factual inferences are viewed in a 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 issues that have been
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011