- 4 -
On April 12, 2006, Mrs. Magee sent petitioner a Notice of
Determination sustaining the proposed levy. On May 15, 2006,
petitioner timely petitioned the Court.
On November 27, 2006, respondent filed the motion for
summary judgment. The Court ordered petitioner to respond to the
motion by January 3, 2006. Petitioner, in his response,
continued to raise frivolous arguments challenging the underlying
liability.
Discussion
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials and may be granted where
there is no genuine issue of material fact and a decision may be
rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(a) and (b); Fla. Peach
Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). The moving party
bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of
material fact, and factual inferences are viewed in a light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Craig v. Commissioner, 119
T.C. 252, 260 (2002); Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821
(1985). The party opposing summary judgment must set forth
specific facts that show that a genuine question of material fact
exists and may not rely merely on allegations or denials in the
pleadings. Grant Creek Water Works, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 91
T.C. 322, 325 (1988); Casanova Co. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 214,
217 (1986).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011