- 4 - petition, petitioner contended that his liabilities for 1992 and 1993 were discharged in the bankruptcy proceedings. On July 25, 2003, respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that petitioner’s tax obligations for 1992 and 1993 were precluded from discharge under the Bankruptcy Code. Discussion Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. See, e.g., FPL Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74 (2001). A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and 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. See Rule 121(b); Elec. Arts, Inc. v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 226, 238 (2002). While the moving party has the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, see, e.g., Rauenhorst v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 157, 162 (2002), the opposing party must show specific facts exhibiting a genuine issue for trial, see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-324 (1986). Where the validity of the underlying liability is not at issue, the Court will review the administrative determination for abuse of discretion. See Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011