- 5 -
petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment asking that this
case "be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction".
Consistent with the order of the bankruptcy court, Mr. Freytag
and respondent filed a stipulation of settled issues in which it
is agreed that there is no deficiency for 1978; there are no
additions to tax for the years 1978, 1981, and 1982; and there
are deficiencies in the amounts of $53,598 and $36,901 for the
years 1981 and 1982, respectively.
Summary Judgment
Rule 121 provides that either party may move for summary
judgment on all or any part of the legal issues in controversy
where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a
decision may be entered as a matter of law. As we understand
Mrs. Freytag's position, she does not seek an entry of a
decision, but rather a dismissal of the case for lack of
jurisdiction with respect to her. Summary judgment, therefore,
would not be an appropriate vehicle to obtain the relief that she
seeks. Nonetheless, as we shall see, there is an aspect of
petitioner's argument that is appropriate for summary judgment
resolution. In these circumstances, initially for discussion
purposes, we treat petitioner's motion as a motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction, which we deny, and then proceed with an
analysis for the proper disposition of this case.
Jurisdiction of the Tax Court
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011