- 6 -
On December 28, 2004, petitioner filed with the Court a
cross-motion for partial summary judgment in petitioner’s favor
that: (1) Petitioner’s rights to shares of stock acquired during
2000 as a result of exercising an ISO were subject to a
substantial risk of forfeiture; and (2) petitioner is entitled to
an ATNOL deduction under section 56(d).
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
partial 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 is
no genuine issue of material fact as to whether petitioner’s
right to shares of Exodus stock was subject to a substantial risk
of forfeiture and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of
law. We also conclude there is a material issue of fact as to
whether petitioner is entitled to an ATNOL deduction under
section 56(d).
Petitioner admits that petitioner’s stock option meets the
requirements of section 422 and qualifies as an ISO. Under
section 421(a), a taxpayer is allowed to defer regular tax on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011