- 5 -
the durable power of attorney while hospitalized after
experiencing hallucinations.
This matter was set for hearing at the Court's motions
session in Washington, D.C. Prior to the hearing, petitioner
filed a Rule 50(c) statement asserting that respondent is barred
from assessing or collecting any deficiencies attributable to the
gifts that petitioner purportedly received pursuant to Ms. Cade's
durable power of attorney because the 4-year period of
limitations under Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. sec. 16.051
(West 1997), which allegedly governs challenges to the validity
of a durable power of attorney, expired prior to the issuance of
the notice of deficiency. Counsel for both parties appeared at
the hearing and presented oral argument on the pending motion.
During the hearing, counsel for respondent argued that the
applicable statute of limitations in this case is set forth in
section 6501(a).3 Both parties filed post-hearing memoranda with
the Court.
Discussion
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. See Florida Peach Corp.
3 Rule 39 states in pertinent part: "A party shall set
forth in the party's pleading any matter constituting an
avoidance or affirmative defense, including * * * the statute of
limitations." Although petitioner has not properly pled the
statute of limitations, we nonetheless deem the matter to be at
issue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011