- 3 -
judgment.2 The parties seek to determine, as a matter of law,
whether the “relation-back doctrine” established in Arrowsmith v.
Commissioner, 344 U.S. 6 (1952), applies in characterizing
petitioner’s gain on the sale of stock for purposes of section
954.
Summary judgment may be granted if the pleadings and other
materials demonstrate that no genuine issue exists as to any
material fact and that a decision may be entered 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). There is no
genuine issue as to any material fact with respect to the
specific legal issue before us, and, accordingly, this matter is
ripe for judgment on the contested issue as a matter of law.3
See Rule 121(b).
2 Petitioner has filed two motions for partial summary
judgment. This opinion considers what has been denominated in
one of those motions as the section 954 “Read-Rite issue”. The
other motion for partial summary judgment concerns what has been
denominated as the “section 482 cost-sharing issue”, which
involves the question of whether the cost, if any, of employee
stock options should be included as part of petitioner’s cost-
sharing agreement with its foreign subsidiaries.
3 While respondent originally believed and argued in his
brief that material facts were in dispute, respondent later
conceded that the parties’ disagreements over the facts focused
on interpretations and conclusions drawn from the underlying
facts and not on the facts themselves.
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