- 8 -
Discussion
I. Summary Judgment
Respondent moved for partial summary judgment with respect
to three issues in this case. Summary judgment is intended to
expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary trials. Fla. Peach
Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). A motion for
partial summary judgment may be granted if there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact. See Rule 121(b); Elec. Arts, Inc.
v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 226, 238 (2002). The moving party
bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of
material fact, and factual inferences will be read in a manner
most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Bond v.
Commissioner, 100 T.C. 32, 36 (1993); Dahlstrom v. Commissioner,
85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985). A partial summary adjudication is
appropriate if all issues in the case are not disposed of. See
Rule 121(b); Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner,
111 T.C. 315, 323-324 (1998). This case is ripe for partial
summary judgment with respect to the termination and net
operating loss issues. Genuine issues of material fact exist
however, with respect to the compensation issue.
II. The Controversy--Generally
Petitioner seeks to use NOLs that arose before and during
his bankruptcy proceeding. Under section 1398(i), petitioner
would succeed to such tax attributes upon the “termination of an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011