- 6 -
In response to the notice of determination, petitioner filed
a petition with this Court on August 1, 2005. Petitioner argued
that Ms. Smith abused her discretion “in relying on ‘cherry
picked’ documentation to determine that the requirements of
applicable law and administrative procedures had been met” and
that “The assessments for each of the tax years in question were
made and a notice of deficiency was issued in violation of
Taxpayer’s due process * * * rights”.
On July 14, 2006, the Court filed respondent’s motion for
summary judgment. On September 18, 2006, the Court filed
petitioner’s response and heard arguments on respondent’s motion.
OPINION
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). We conclude that there are no genuine issues of
material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law.
When, as is the case here, the taxpayer received a notice of
deficiency and did not petition the Court, the validity of the
underlying tax liability is not at issue, and the Court will
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007