- 2 -
dispute as to a material fact and that they are entitled to
partial summary judgment as a matter of law. In particular,
petitioners contend that the general 3-year period of limitations
under section 6501(a) bars the assessment of any deficiency
attributable to respondent’s determination that the property that
petitioners sold in 1995 was not their “principal residence”.
Respondent objects to petitioners’ motion on the ground that the
assessment of the deficiency, which is attributable in its
entirety to gain that petitioners realized on the sale of their
purported principal residence, is subject to the period of
limitations set forth in section 1034(j)–-a period that
respondent contends remained open on the date the notice of
deficiency was issued to petitioners.
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Fla. 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(a) and (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);
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011