Opinion
11127-22L
04-17-2023
GREGORY PALMER HARSHA & VICKI KAY HARSHA, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Joseph W. Nega Judge
This case is calendared for trial at the in-person trial session of the Court commencing on June 12, 2023, in Anchorage, Alaska.
On April 13, 2023, respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Declaration in Support of the motion. In the motion, respondent asserts that there is no genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial, and therefore, this case can be decided in respondent's favor.
If petitioner disagrees with the facts set forth in respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, then any such response should point out the specific points in dispute, explain why those points are in dispute, and provide specific examples, if necessary. If petitioner disagrees with respondent's argument as to the law, then any such response should also set forth petitioner's position on the disputed legal issues. The Court has prepared questions and answers on the subject "What is a motion for summary judgment? How should I respond to one?" which can be found on the Court's website at www.ustaxcourt.gov.
Petitioner should note that Rule 121(d), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, provides in pertinent part, "[i]f the adverse party [i.e., petitioner] does not so respond [to a motion for summary judgment], then a decision, if appropriate, may be entered against such party [i.e., petitioner]".
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that, on or before May 15, 2023, petitioner shall file a response to respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment.