- 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