- 11 -
2(d)(4), Income Tax Regs. Petitioner, from a limited universe of
information, has attempted to show that it is not aware of an
arm’s-length transaction where the costs of stock options were
shared; i.e., that its officers and employees are not aware of
any circumstances where costs of stock options have been shared
in petitioner’s experiences and in those of employees who have
experience with other companies. Through Government FARS
contract standards, petitioner has attempted to show that some
portion of the potential universe of unrelated (arm’s-length)
research and development transactions did not involve the sharing
of the cost of employee stock options.
In the context of a partial summary judgment motion, we
should not undertake the role of a fact finder. In such a
setting, a judge should not engage in credibility determinations,
weighing the evidence, or drawing inferences from the “facts”
that the moving and nonmoving parties present. See Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1985); Naftel v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). As significantly, “The
evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable
inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., supra at 255; see also Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,
398 U.S. 144, 158-159 (1970); Blanton v. Commissioner, 94 T.C.
491, 494 (1990).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011