- 8 -
As indicated, respondent filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. Respondent contends that petitioner's dilatory conduct
in this litigation, considered in conjunction with the matters
that petitioner is deemed to have admitted pursuant to Rules
37(c) and 90(c), justifies entry of summary judgment in
respondent's favor.
Petitioner filed an opposition to respondent's motion,
blaming Mr. Peabody for failing to respond to respondent's Second
Request for Admissions and Amendment to Answer. Petitioner
further asserts that respondent's motion should be denied insofar
as petitioner intends to show that she is entitled to deductions
for real estate taxes and other miscellaneous expenses incurred
during the years in issue.
This matter was called for hearing at the Court's motions
session in Washington, D.C. Counsel for respondent appeared at
the hearing and offered argument in support of respondent's
motion. Although petitioner did not attend the hearing, she did
file a written statement with the Court pursuant to Rule 50(c).
Discussion
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid
unnecessary and expensive trials. See Florida Peach Corp. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Summary judgment may be
granted with respect to all or any part of the legal issues in
controversy "if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011