- 7 -
surveys carried out by respondent, and all policy changes made by
respondent in handling audits from 1994 to the present.
I. Standard for Summary Judgment
Contrary to petitioner’s objections, summary judgment is not
a novel procedure to be employed only with the consent of both
parties. We stated in Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1996-292:
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials of phantom
factual issues. Kroh v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 383, 390
(1992); Florida Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C.
678, 681 (1988). Summary judgment may be granted with
respect to all or any part of the legal issues in
controversy "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); Sundstrand Corp. v.
Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d
965 (7th Cir. 1994); Zaentz v. Commissioner, 90 T.C.
753, 754 (1988). * * *
Our Rule 121 provides for summary judgment in appropriate
cases and follows the basic structure of rule 56 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure applied by Federal courts nationwide.
The rules permitting summary judgment recognize that trials
are necessary when there is a disputed issue of material fact
that can properly be resolved only by hearing live testimony.
Holding a trial serves no valid purpose when the issues can be
resolved as a matter of law on undisputed facts established by
affidavits, party admissions and other appropriate evidence. In
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