- 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, 610
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011