- 30 -
Second, respondent relies on nonspecific allegations of an
informal agreement or understanding between the donees and NMG,
WCP, Mr. Rauenhorst, and/or Arbeit. Summary assertions and
conclusory allegations are simply not enough evidence to raise a
genuine issue of material fact. Daniels v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1994-591 (citing Lechuga v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 949 F.2d
790, 798 (5th Cir. 1992)). Also, Rule 121(d) provides:
When a motion for summary judgment is made and
supported as provided in this Rule, an adverse party
may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of
such party’s pleading, but such party’s response, by
affidavits or as otherwise provided in this Rule, must
set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial. * * *
See also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); King v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1213, 1217 (1986). Respondent alleges no
facts or evidence to substantiate his position, and he has
submitted no affidavits in response to the affidavits that
petitioners submitted. Instead, he points out that the record
lacks information regarding any discussions, deliberations, or
negotiations which may have taken place between the donees and
the other parties. Respondent has had ample opportunity to
investigate the facts surrounding these transactions, and it is
clear that respondent could have requested additional information
from the individuals involved. See Rule 121(e). He has
requested neither additional discovery nor a continuance for
purposes of additional discovery. He has not demonstrated to our
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011