Ismat M. Abeid - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
          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); Sundstrand              
          Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965           
          (7th Cir. 1994).  In the instant case, the parties agree that               
          there are no genuine issues of material fact and that judgment              
          may be rendered as a matter of law.                                         
               In support of their respective motions, each party has                 
          submitted a memorandum of points and authorities.  A hearing on             
          the motions was also held.                                                  
               The parties do not dispute that, at the time of filing of              
          the petition, petitioner was a resident of Israel.2                         
               During 1992, while residing in California, petitioner, an              
          Israeli citizen, purchased a California State Lottery ticket for            
          $1.  That ticket won the “Super Lotto” lottery, entitling                   
          petitioner to receive annual payments of $722,000 from the                  
          California State Lottery for 20 years.  Petitioner did not have a           
          choice as to the timing or manner of payment of his lottery                 
          winnings.                                                                   
               During 1997, 1998, and 1999 (years in issue), petitioner               
          resided in Israel.  For each of the years in issue, petitioner              
          received payments of $722,000 in California State Lottery                   


               2 The parties have stipulated that review of this case shall           
          be by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011