- 6 -
refund and determined petitioner had received additional capital
gains of $6,941 and had a tax deficiency of $1,470 for 1999.
On December 27, 2004, respondent filed a motion for partial
summary judgment in respondent’s favor upon the issue of whether
petitioner received gross income from the exercise of his
nonstatutory stock options in 1999.2
On December 30, 2004, petitioner filed a cross-motion for
summary judgment.
Discussion
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). The Court may grant
summary judgment when there are no genuine issues of material
fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Rule
121(b); 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). We conclude that there are no genuine
issues of material fact as to whether petitioner received gross
income from the exercise of nonstatutory stock options in 1999
and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law.
2 Petitioner has since conceded that he received $6,941 of
capital gains in addition to the amount he had reported on his
Federal tax return for 1999, which was the remaining issue not
covered by respondent’s motion for partial summary judgment.
Therefore, respondent’s motion shall be treated as a motion for
summary judgment.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011