Opinion
11080-23S
01-12-2024
SWACEY L. FLAGLER, SR., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
KATHLEEN KERRIGAN CHIEF JUDGE.
On December 6, 2023, petitioner filed in the above-docketed matter a Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion stated in its entirety: "I have been dealing with trying to get a response from the IRS regarding this matter since 2021. I have provided all the evidence they have asked for and I have yet to be contacted from the IRS to resolve this matter." Respondent thereafter on December 22, 2023, response in objection to the motion.
Summary Judgment Standard
Rule 121(a)(1) of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure allows a party to move "for summary judgment on all or any part of the legal issues in controversy." Rule 121(a)(2) directs that a decision on such a motion shall be rendered "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that no genuine dispute or issue of material fact exists and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), aff'd, 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). Facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id.
Discussion
Background for the pending motion may be recapitulated briefly as follows. The underlying notice of deficiency for 2021 reflects liability for income tax in the amount of $13,987.00 and a penalty under section 6676(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) in the amount of $2,719.80. The adjustments were premised primarily on disallowance of claimed dependents, related earned income credit and child tax credits, and a recovery rebate credit, as well as inclusion of unreported unemployment compensation.
The pending motion apparently requests judgment based principally on allegations that respondent has been unresponsive petitioner's documentation and that such documentation adequately supports petitioner's position as claimed on petitioner's return.
Thus, given the foregoing, it is clear that the crux of petitioner's stance is essentially the converse of a situation that would be ripe for summary judgment. In claiming that entitlement to claimed deductions and credits has been properly established and substantiated, petitioner instead suggests the need for evidentiary development. Evidence, in turn, is received by the Court by means of the stipulation and trial process, not through pleadings such as the petition, answer, and any reply. See, e.g., Rules 91, 143, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Stated otherwise, and drawing all factual inferences against petitioner as the moving party in this context, material facts pertaining to petitioner's entitlement deductions and credits, as well as the proper amount of income received, remain in dispute for evidentiary development and render summary judgment inappropriate at this juncture.
Accordingly, the premises considered, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed December 6, 2023, is denied.