DocketNumber: Docket No. 23938-93
Citation Numbers: 69 T.C.M. 1678, 1995 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 20, 1995 T.C. Memo. 20
Judges: LARO
Filed Date: 1/17/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
*20 An appropriate order and decision will be entered for respondent.
P, a coexecutor of D's estate, received property from the estate in P's capacity as a beneficiary. R determined that P is personally liable for the estate's unpaid estate tax, as a fiduciary of the estate and as a transferee of its assets.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LARO,
*21 Respondent moves the Court for summary judgment under
Respondent's motion is mainly supported by: (1) Affirmative allegations in her answer that petitioner admitted in his reply, (2) affirmative allegations in her answer that petitioner was deemed to have admitted under Rule 37(c), 3*23 and (3) matters in her request for admissions that petitioner was deemed to have admitted under Rule 90(c). The request for admissions was served*22 on petitioner on June 20, 1994. Petitioner failed to respond timely. Each matter contained therein is deemed admitted.
*24 Petitioner is the grandson of Gladys C. Beckwith (decedent), who was a resident of the State of New York when she died on December 5, 1988. The Estate's tax return was filed with respondent's service center in Andover, Massachusetts, on August 28, 1989. Petitioner was a coexecutor of the Estate, and he signed the estate tax return in that capacity.
Respondent determined a $ 91,986.02 deficiency in the Estate's Federal estate tax. This deficiency, to the extent of $ 36,574.57, has not been satisfied and is a debt due the United States within the meaning of
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials of phantom factual issues.
*26 Because summary judgment decides the case against a party without the benefit of a trial, the Court grants such a remedy cautiously and sparingly, and only after carefully ascertaining that the moving party has met the criteria.
Respondent supported her motion for summary judgment with the pleadings, deemed admissions, and an affidavit*27 of one of her attorneys. Petitioner filed an opposition, but it is not supported by an affidavit, answers to interrogatories, deposition, or other acceptable materials. We find that this opposition does not appropriately set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. We view "the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits", and find no genuine issue as to any material fact.
The executor of an estate must pay its Federal estate tax, sec. 2002, and may be held personally liable for any unpaid tax,
Petitioner agrees that he was a coexecutor/fiduciary of the Estate and signed its Federal estate tax return in that capacity. Petitioner contests, however, respondent's determination that this fiduciary relationship makes him personally liable for the $ 36,574.57 in Federal estate tax that was owed by the Estate. The record establishes that petitioner had actual or constructive knowledge of the unpaid tax at the time that he distributed the estate to the beneficiaries.
*30 For the foregoing reasons,
1. Petitioner resided in Columbus, Ohio, when he filed his petition.↩
2. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended.↩
3. Respondent moved this Court on Feb. 23, 1994, that the undenied allegations in her answer be deemed admitted. We notified petitioner that these allegations would be deemed admitted unless he filed a reply on or before Mar. 17, 1994. Petitioner did not admit or deny all of these allegations. Accordingly, the undenied affirmative allegations are considered admitted. Rule 37(c).↩
4. On June 20, 1994, respondent served petitioner with a request for answers to interrogatories and a request for production of documents. Petitioner did not comply with these requests, and respondent moved the Court on July 29, 1994, and Aug. 8, 1994, to compel production of the documents and answers to the interrogatories, respectively. We granted both of these motions and ordered petitioner: (1) To produce the requested documents to respondent's counsel by Aug. 29, 1994, or to file a response with the Court stating why the documents should not be produced, and (2) to furnish answers to the interrogatories to respondent's counsel by Sept. 6, 1994, or to file a response with the Court stating why the interrogatories should not be answered. When this case was called from the calendar in New York, New York, on Sept. 19, 1994, petitioner had not yet complied with our order to produce the requested documents to respondent, and appeared to have not yet complied with our order to answer the interrogatories. Petitioner also did not comply with our standing pretrial order, dated Apr. 18, 1994, to prepare a trial memorandum and to submit a copy of it to the Court and to his adversary at least 15 days before the trial session.↩
5. According to When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this Rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of such party's pleading, but such party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this Rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, then a decision, if appropriate, may be entered against such party.↩
6. Indeed, petitioner does not even allege that he lacked knowledge of the estate's unpaid taxes at the time of the distributions.↩
7. Respondent also determined that petitioner is personally liable for the tax as a transferee of assets. We also sustain this determination. Based on the facts before us, we are confident that petitioner is personally liable as a transferee.
Minnie Viles, Administratrix of the Estate of Cloyd H. ... , 233 F.2d 376 ( 1956 )
Vincent C. Wiley v. United States of America Citizens ... , 20 F.3d 222 ( 1994 )
United States v. Diebold, Inc. , 82 S. Ct. 993 ( 1962 )
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of ... , 106 S. Ct. 2548 ( 1986 )