Robert J. Hoaglund - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         

               process or engaging in any act to collect such debts as                
               personal liabilities of the above-named debtor.                        
          The order of discharge was entered on July 30, 1996.                        
               In answer to petitioner's petition, respondent generally               
          denied petitioner's allegation that the bankruptcy court had                
          discharged petitioner's debt for the additional tax on premature            
          distributions.  In reply to that answer, petitioner asserted that           
          respondent failed to object to the discharge of petitioner's debts          
          after notice by the U.S. Trustee assigned to the case, and                  
          petitioner argued that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral         
          estoppel prohibited respondent from attempting to collect the               
          additional tax on premature distributions.                                  
          Discussion                                                                  
               Rule 120 provides that after the pleadings in a case are               
          closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, a party may          
          move for judgment on the pleadings.  The granting of a motion for           
          judgment on the pleadings is proper only where the pleadings do not         
          raise a genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is              
          entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Abrams v. Commissioner,           
          82 T.C. 403, 408 (1984); Anthony v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 367               
          (1976), affd. without published opinion 566 F.2d 1168 (3d Cir.              
          1977).  We find that no genuine issue of material fact is in                
          dispute herein.                                                             
               Respondent is not herein entitled to judgment as a matter of           
          law because we do not have jurisdiction to address the issue raised         




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011