                        T.C. Memo. 2006-208



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                  MARCUS C. SEAY, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 24411-04.                 Filed September 27, 2006.


     Marcus C. Seay, pro se.

     Steven M. Webster, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     WELLS, Judge:   The instant case is before the Court on

respondent’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121.1

After considering respondent’s motion and petitioner’s response,



     1
      Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section
references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the
year in issue.
                                - 2 -

we conclude that no issues of material fact that require trial

remain.    For the reasons stated below, we shall grant

respondent’s motion for summary judgment.

                             Background

     At the time of filing the petition, petitioner resided in

Gastonia, North Carolina.    Petitioner failed to file Federal

income tax returns or pay taxes for taxable years 1999, 2000, and

2002.    During each of the years in issue, petitioner had income

in the form of wages, dividends, capital gains, interest, and

nonemployee compensation.

     On September 28, 2004, respondent issued separate notices of

deficiency to petitioner for the 1999, 2000, and 2002 taxable

years.    The notices determined the deficiency for each year, plus

section 6651(a)(1) and section 6654(a) additions to tax.

Petitioner timely petitioned this Court for redetermination of

the deficiencies.    Respondent timely filed an answer.

     At the call of the calendar for the instant case on May 22,

2006, the Court ruled that respondent’s proposed Stipulation of

Facts was deemed established pursuant to respondent’s Rule 91(f)

motion.    The instant case was continued, and on June 21, 2006,

respondent moved for summary judgment.    Petitioner timely filed a

response but failed to state any specific facts that show the

existence of a genuine question of material fact.
                                 - 3 -

                             Discussion

     Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and

avoid unnecessary and expensive trials and may be granted where

there is no genuine issue of material fact and a decision may be

rendered as a matter of law.    Rule 121(a) and (b); Fla. Peach

Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988).       The moving party

bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of

material fact, and factual inferences are viewed in a light most

favorable to the nonmoving party.        Craig v. Commissioner, 119

T.C. 252, 260 (2002); Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821

(1985); Jacklin v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 340, 344 (1982).         The

party opposing summary judgment must set forth specific facts

that show a genuine question of material fact exists and may not

rely merely on allegations or denials in the pleadings.        Grant

Creek Water Works, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 322, 325 (1988);

Casanova Co. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 214, 217 (1986).

     Petitioner has not set forth specific facts showing the

existence of a genuine issue of material fact.       Petitioner

contends that the records of petitioner’s income subpoenaed from

the payers by respondent were not properly admitted under the

Federal Rules of Evidence.     Petitioner’s contention is without

merit.   What petitioner fails to understand is that the amounts

of his income for the years in issue in the instant case have

been deemed admitted.   At no time in the instant case did
                                 - 4 -

petitioner provide any evidence that the amounts or the

deficiencies determined by respondent therefrom were other than

as respondent has determined.    Accordingly, we hold that no

genuine issue of material fact exists requiring trial and

respondent is entitled to summary judgment.

     We have considered all of petitioner’s contentions, and, to

the extent they are not addressed herein, they are irrelevant,

moot, or without merit.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                              An appropriate order and

                                         decision will be entered.
