Agapito Fajardo and Clara S. Fajardo - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         

          Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (interpreting            
          Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 on which Rule 121 was modeled); Espinoza v.              
          Commissioner, 78 T.C. 412, 416 (1982).  With respect to issues on           
          which the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the           
          party moving for summary judgment may satisfy his burden "by                
          'showing'--that is, pointing out to the * * * [trial] court--that           
          there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's            
          case."  Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, supra at 325.  In deciding                
          whether to grant summary judgment, we view the facts and the                
          inferences drawn from them in the light most favorable to the               
          nonmoving party.  See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.             
          242, 255 (1986); Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821                
          (1985); Jacklin v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 340, 344 (1982).                   
               On this record, we must grant respondent's motion for                  
          summary judgment.  Respondent's motion is grounded upon a                   
          complete lack of evidence in the record regarding the factual               
          issues raised by the petition and on concessions deemed admitted            
          under Rule 90.3  As the parties with the burden of proof at                 
          trial, see Rule 142(a), petitioners could not defend against                
          respondent's motion for summary judgment by silence; they had an            

               3Six out of the seven requests for admissions were requests            
          for concessions of legal liability.  Whether such requests are              
          proper under Rule 90 is an issue we need not decide since the               
          record before us is sufficient to grant respondent's motion for             
          summary judgment without relying on the concessions.                        

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011