- 2 -
Laurence E. Nemirow, Josh O. Ungerman, and William R.
Cousins III, for petitioners.
James E. Archie, for respondent.
OPINION
VASQUEZ, Judge: This matter is presently before the Court
on petitioners’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. In
the event petitioners’ motion to dismiss is not granted, the
parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment1 pursuant
to Rule 121.2 As discussed below, we shall deny petitioners’
motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, and we shall
grant summary judgment in favor of respondent.
Background
Petitioners resided in Boulder, Colorado, at the time their
petition was filed in this case. The following summary of the
relevant facts is based on the parties’ stipulations and attached
exhibits.
1 The motions were originally filed as motions for partial
summary judgment. Yet, subsequent to the filing of these
motions, the parties settled with respect to all other issues
remaining in the case. Accordingly, we drop the “partial”
modifier and treat the motions as requesting summary judgment in
favor of the movant.
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and
all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
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