Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GOULDING v. UNITED STATES

November 29, 1989

VICTOR H. GOULDING, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant


Milton I. Shadur, United States District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: SHADUR

MILTON I. SHADUR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 Victor Goulding ("Goulding") sues for a refund of 1982 federal income taxes. In response the United States has moved for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 56. For the reasons stated in this memorandum opinion and order, the United States' motion is granted.

 Facts

 Familiar Rule 56 principles impose on the movant the burden of establishing the lack of a genuine issue of material fact ( Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986)). For that purpose this Court is called on to draw all "reasonable inferences, not every conceivable inference" in the light most favorable to the nonmovant -- in this case Goulding ( DeValk Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 811 F.2d 326, 329 (7th Cir. 1987)).

 In this case, however, Goulding (himself a lawyer) and his counsel (his son Randall Goulding) have totally ignored the requirements of Rule 56(e) -- they have offered nothing in the form of admissible evidence (see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-50, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986) and cases cited there; cf. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324). *fn1" Because Goulding's response under this District Court's General Rule ("GR") 12(m) admits all except Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the government's GR 12(l) statement, *fn2" the following statement reflects the only relevant facts in this case -- all admitted except for Paragraphs 3 and 4, as to which both the government's statement and Goulding's response are reproduced: *fn3"

 
1. The taxpayer, Victor H. Goulding, at all times relevant to this action maintained his legal residence and last-known address at 300 N. State Street, Chicago, Illinois 60010.
 
2. The taxpayer, Victor H. Goulding, timely filed his 1982 federal income tax return on or about August 16, 1983.
 
3. [Government] On July 28, 1986, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue mailed a statutory notice of deficiency to the plaintiff-taxpayer, Victor H. Goulding; the notice was sent by certified mail and was addressed to him at:
 
300 N. State Street
 
Chicago, Illinois 60010
 
[Miller Declaration, para. 3 (Attachment A)]
 
4. [Government] The taxpayer, Victor H. Goulding, failed or refused to claim the envelope containing the statutory notice of deficiency and the proposed deficiency was assessed.
 
[Miller Declaration, para. 3 (Attachments C and D); Complaint, Exhibit A, page 2]
 
5. On or about June 19 and 25, 1987, the taxpayer paid the tax, penalty, and interest in the total amount of $ 45,919.72.
 
6. On or about July 2, 1987, the taxpayer filed an amended return, seeking a refund of the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.