- 5 -
of $22,500 from Citizens State Bank to respondent was credited
against IEEI’s outstanding tax liabilities.
Discussion
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. See Northern Ind. Pub.
Serv. Co. v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 294, 295 (1993); Shiosaki v.
Commissioner, 61 T.C. 861, 862 (1974). Rule 121(a) provides that
either party may move for a summary judgment upon all or any part
of the legal issues in controversy. Full or partial summary
judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and a decision may be rendered 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). Respondent, as
the moving party, bears the burden of proving that no genuine
issue exists as to any material fact and that he is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. See Bond v. Commissioner, 100 T.C.
32, 36 (1993); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985).
Once a motion for summary judgment is made and supported,
the nonmoving party must do more than merely allege or deny facts
in its pleadings; it must “set forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does
not so respond, then a decision, if appropriate, may be entered
against such party.” Rule 121(d); accord Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 n.3 (1986); Sundstrand Corp. v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011