-3-
Petitioner’s father died in 1999 owning two IRAs with Edward
D. Jones & Co. Petitioner was a beneficiary of both IRAs in the
event of his father’s death. No nondeductible contributions were
made to either of the IRAs. In 1999, after the death of his
father, petitioner received lump-sum distributions from the IRAs
of $7,000 and $12,561. Petitioner reported the $7,000
distribution on his 1999 return but listed it as nontaxable.
Petitioner did not report the $12,561 distribution on his 1999
return.
After the requests for admissions were deemed admitted,
respondent filed a motion for summary judgment seeking judgment
in respondent’s favor on all issues. Petitioner filed a timely
response stating only that he “respectfully OBJECTS to
Respondent’s 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 is no genuine issue 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). Rule 121(d) states:
When a motion for summary judgment is made and
supported as provided in this Rule, an adverse party
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008