Opinion
13748-19 6192-20
06-27-2022
ERIC A. VANDERWERFF, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Joseph W. Nega, Judge
These consolidated cases are scheduled for a one-week special session of the Court to be conducted remotely commencing August 1, 2022, for which Spokane, Washington, is listed as the place of trial. On June 2, 2022, petitioner filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (petitioner's motion). In petitioner's motion, petitioner asserts that the notices of deficiency at issue in these cases were "based on a fraud" due to inaccurate third-party income reporting and that he is thus entitled to summary judgment.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation and avoid costly, time-consuming, and unnecessary trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C 678, 681 (1998). The Court may grant summary judgment when there is no genuine dispute as to any 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), aff'd, 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). In deciding whether to grant summary judgment, we construe factual materials and draw inferences from them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Sundstrand Corp., 98 T.C. at 520. However, the nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleadings but, rather, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute for trial. Rule 121(d); see Sundstrand Corp., 98 T.C. at 520.
We conclude that a genuine issue of material fact exists between the parties and that petitioner is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, we will deny petitioner's motion.
In addition, petitioner's arguments seem to relate in part to his contention "that all payments from all payers for years 2016 and 2017 were private payments that are not subject to the income tax," which appears to be a frivolous position. We warn petitioner that such an argument will be ill-received by the Court at its upcoming special session if he attempts to advance it. See § 6673(a)(1) (authorizing the Court to require the taxpayer to pay the United States a penalty of up to $25,000 if it appears to the Court that the taxpayer has taken a position that is "frivolous or groundless").
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed June 2, 2022, in each case is denied.