Gilbert Hahn, Jr. and Margot H. Hahn - Page 6
- 6 -
During November 2006, petitioner filed a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment. The motion states that petitioner’s gross
income does not include any amounts attributable to the related
items.4 Respondent opposes the motion.
Summary judgment is appropriate with respect to all or any
part of the legal issues in controversy “if the pleadings,
answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any
other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that 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). The moving party
bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of
material fact, and factual inferences will be read in a manner
most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Dahlstrom
v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985).
Petitioner advances two arguments in support of his motion.
Petitioner’s first contention is that because he did not receive
cash or other property when he allegedly became obligated for the
related items, he was not enriched by the forgiveness of the
4 Petitioner also contends that he did not realize discharge
of indebtedness income with respect to the principal amount of
the loan; however, petitioner does not seek summary judgment with
respect to that amount.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Last modified: November 10, 2007