Mohammed Ali Gazi and Estate of Raees Iftekhar Gazi, Deceased, Mohammed Ali Gazi, Personal Representative - Page 16




                                       - 16 -                                         
                                     Discussion                                       
               The Court may grant summary judgment where 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).  We             
          conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact                  
          regarding the questions raised in respondent's motion.                      
               It is the position of Mr. Gazi and Ms. Gazi’s estate that              
          the Court should not sustain the determinations set forth in the            
          notice of determination.  In support of that position, Mr. Gazi             
          and Ms. Gazi’s estate argue that they are not liable for the                
          Gazis’ unpaid liabilities for 1983 through 1989 because the                 
          stipulated decision document in the Gazis’ Tax Court case was               
          executed without the Gazis’ knowledge or authorization.8  In                

               8In respondent’s motion, respondent states respondent’s                
          understanding that Mr. Gazi and Ms. Gazi’s estate are arguing               
          (1) that the appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh                
          Circuit operated as a stay of the collection of the Gazis’ unpaid           
          liabilities for 1983 through 1989 and (2) that therefore                    
          respondent abused respondent’s discretion in making the                     
          determinations in the notice of determination.  In response to              
          that purported argument, respondent maintains that the record               
          does not establish that Mr. Gazi and Ms. Gazi’s estate filed a              
          bond as required under sec. 7485(a) in order to stay the                    
          collection of those unpaid liabilities.  In the response of Mr.             
          Gazi and Ms. Gazi’s estate to respondent’s motion, Mr. Gazi and             
          Ms. Gazi’s estate state: “Respondent mischaracterizes                       
          Petitioner’s first argument.  In the petition filed August 4,               
          2006, Petitioner first contests the underlying tax liability.               
          Petitioner does not aver that his motion for leave to file a                
          motion to vacate operated as a stay of collection”.  Nor do we              
          believe that Mr. Gazi and Ms. Gazi’s estate are arguing that the            
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008