- 2 -
OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court
on respondent’s motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to
Rule 121. The parties agree that there is no dispute as to any
material fact. Respondent contends that his determination
denying petitioner’s request for relief from joint and several
liability should be sustained as a matter of law.
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,
754 (1988); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985).
As explained in detail below, there is no genuine issue as
to any material fact, and a decision may be rendered as a matter
of law. Accordingly, we shall grant respondent’s motion for
summary judgment.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011