Opinion
23354-21
02-09-2024
Nat S. Harty & April D. Harty, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
KATHLEEN KERRIGAN CHIEF JUDGE.
This case is before the Court on petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed August 23, 2023. On June 23, 2021, respondent issued to petitioners a notice of deficiency for tax year 2016, which determined a deficiency of $842,837 and an accuracy-related penalty of $168,567 pursuant to section 6662(a).Respondent assert a heightened penalty rate of 40% under section 6662(i) in their First Amendment to Answer.
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the year at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. All monetary amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.
Petitioners move that the Court grant petitioners partial summary judgment that the economic substance doctrine under section 7701(o) and the accuracy penalty pursuant to section 6662(b)(6) do not apply here.
Full or partial summary judgment may be granted where the pleadings and other materials show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(a); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), aff'd 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FPL Grp., Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74-75 (2001).
The Court will view any factual inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Bond v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 32, 36 (1993). The nonmoving party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his or her pleading but must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine dispute for trial. Sundstrand, 98 T.C. at 520.
Respondent alleges numerous disputes of material fact in their response to petitioners' Motion. Upon due consideration of petitioner's Motion and the parties Responses, it appears that there are material issues of fact in dispute. Consequently resolution of the issues in this case upon summary adjudication is not appropriate. See Rule 121. Premises considered, it is
ORDERED that petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed August 23, 2023, is denied.
ORDERED that a joint status report is due on or before March 29, 2024.