- 14 -
issues presented in petitioner’s prior case against Goldman.
Second, petitioner argues, the issue of whether it suffered a
theft loss on account of the insider trading of Boesky and his
co-conspirators (collectively, Boesky) was not actually litigated
in the prior case because, petitioner contends, the issue was not
necessary to a holding there.
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and to
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials of phantom factual issues.
P & X Mkts., Inc. v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 441, 443 (1996),
affd. without published opinion 139 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 1998);
Boyd Gaming Corp. v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 343, 347 (1996).
The concept of summary judgment is specifically recognized by
this Court and is deeply ingrained in our procedural rules.
See Rule 121(a) (“Either party may move, with or without
supporting affidavits, for a summary adjudication in the moving
party’s favor upon all or any part of the legal issues in
controversy”). A decision on the merits of a taxpayer's claim
can be made through summary judgment "if the pleadings, answers
to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any other
acceptable materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a
decision may be rendered as a matter of law." Rule 121(b); see
also Zaentz v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 753, 754 (1988). Because
summary judgment decides against a party before trial, we grant
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011