- 2 -
an objection to the motion in each docket. Petitioners contend
that there is no material issue of fact and that they are
entitled to partial summary judgment as a matter of law. In
particular, petitioners seek to preclude respondent from
asserting judicial estoppel. Respondent has invoked that
doctrine in an attempt to bar petitioners from introducing
evidence of cash on hand as the source of deposits alleged by
respondent to be income 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); see
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,
1(...continued)
his objection in each docket be considered as a cross-motion for
partial summary judgment. Given our conclusion herein, we need
not act on this request. Unless otherwise indicated, all section
references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all
rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure. By order dated Nov. 13, 2002, these dockets were
consolidated.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011