- 23 -
their customers--apply to the time deposits and CD's that are
also at issue in this case.
The materials submitted by the parties with respect to their
motions for summary judgment do not permit us to answer those
factual questions. As a result, there are genuine issues of
material fact that must be resolved by a trial, or be obviated by
agreement of the parties, before we can decide whether the rule
of law we first expressed in Security Bank Minn. v. Commissioner,
supra, and recently applied in Security State Bank v.
Commissioner, supra, applies to the CD's and time deposits held
by the petitioner. Therefore, we hold that summary judgment is
not appropriate with respect to the treatment of the CD's and
time deposits held by IFNB.20
20 The fact that both parties have moved for summary
judgment does not require the Court to decide that there are no
genuine issues of material fact, or that summary judgment is
appropriate. Under Rule 121(b), summary judgment shall be
rendered "if the pleadings * * * and any other acceptable
materials * * * show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of
law." The burden of proving that there is no issue of material
fact is on the moving party; and in deciding whether to grant
summary judgment, the Court must view the factual materials and
inferences drawn from them in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Bond v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 32, 36 (1993);
Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). In addition,
where both parties have moved for summary judgment, each party's
motion must be considered independently, to determine whether
that party has met its burden of proof. Take v. Commissioner, 82
T.C. 630, 633 (1984), affd. 804 F.2d 553 (9th Cir. 1986); Abramo
v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 154, 162-163 (1982).
This Court has often found that issues of material fact
(continued...)
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011