- 2 -
Held: P’s circumstances meet the threshold
requirements for relief under sec. 1033.
Philip N. Jones and Peter J. Duffy, for petitioner.
William A. McCarthy, for respondent.
OPINION
GERBER, Judge: The parties filed cross-motions for partial
summary judgment.1 The controversy concerns whether petitioner
is entitled to defer gain resulting from the salvage (processing
and sale) of damaged trees under section 1033.2 The parties have
agreed on the salient facts. The controverted issue involves a
legal question that is ripe for summary judgment.3
1 Respondent first moved on Oct. 27, 2000, for partial
summary judgment. The parties subsequently reached an agreed set
of facts and issues. After the agreement, petitioner, on Apr.
26, 2001, filed its motion for partial summary judgment, which
properly frames the issues. Respondent objected to the granting
of petitioner’s motion and, on June 14, 2001, advanced a
cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Petitioner was also
afforded an opportunity to address respondent’s cross-motion.
Accordingly, respondent’s motion for partial summary judgment,
filed Oct. 27, 2000, is deemed moot.
2 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise
indicated.
3 Rule 121; 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); Fla. Peach Corp. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85
T.C. 527, 529 (1985).
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