- 16 -
II. Respondent’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Respondent has moved for partial summary judgment in his
favor (the summary judgment motion) with respect to petitioners’
limitations defense, the existence and amount of the additional
1996 deficiency,11 and the additions to tax asserted against Dr.
Trowbridge.12 Summary judgment is a device used to expedite
litigation and is intended to avoid unnecessary and expensive
trials of “phantom factual questions.” Espinoza v. Commissioner,
78 T.C. 412, 416 (1982). Since there was a trial in this case,
at which respondent presented evidence pertaining to the issues
addressed in the summary judgment motion, we need not determine
whether summary adjudication is appropriate here. We shall,
therefore, deny the summary judgment motion (although we largely
10(...continued)
default is the ratification of respondent’s primary position that
Dr. Trowbridge, rather than Life Center and Life Choices, is
liable for any deficiencies in tax and additions to tax
determined in the notice of deficiency.
11 In his amendment to answer, respondent alleges an
additional 1996 deficiency of $244,935, based on gross business
receipts of $1,649,376 for that year. In his posttrial brief,
respondent asserts that Dr. Trowbridge had gross business
receipts of $1,632,423 in 1996, thus necessitating a Rule 155
computation with respect to the additional 1996 deficiency.
12 Respondent moved in the alternative for partial summary
judgment against Life Center and Life Choices in the event we
deny his request for default judgment against Dr. Trowbridge.
Our disposition of the default motion renders that alternative
position moot.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011