- 9 -
expenditures. The storm expenses were accepted by respondent and
a portion of the claimed repair expense deduction was allowed by
respondent. In its second amended return, filed in December of
1993, petitioner claimed an additional repair expense deduction
of approximately $21 million related to the same type of
expenditures currently in issue. Respondent allowed an
additional repair expense deduction for these expenditures in the
amount of approximately $11 million. During the audit of the
years 1988 to 1992, respondent proposed to capitalize certain
expenditures related to Florida Power that petitioner had
reported as deductible repair expenses on its original tax
returns.
Discussion
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. See Northern Ind. Pub.
Serv. Co. v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 294, 295 (1993); Shiosaki v.
Commissioner, 61 T.C. 861, 862 (1974). Rule 121(a) provides that
either party may move for a summary judgment upon all or any part
of the legal issues in controversy. Full or partial summary
judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law.
See Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518,
520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). Respondent, as
the moving party, bears the burden of proving that no genuine
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011