- 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