- 14 -
entire subpart F issue as it relates to CIBV, and (2) the closely
proximate relationship of the new contentions to those raised in
the original notice of deficiency and answer.
As to the first point listed, and particularly in light of
the fact that Mr. Kassar is likely to contest the whipsaw
allocation to him of 50 percent of CIBV’s income, we fail to see
how a fair and satisfactory outcome can be reached in these two
related cases without addressing Nestor. As regards the second
point, ownership of CIBV for purposes of determining both CFC
status and section 951 attribution has been at issue from the
earliest stages of this dispute. Hence, petitioners were already
faced with needing to marshal evidence related to these ownership
matters. Such circumstance, especially when coupled with the
ample time remaining to prepare for trial, which is scheduled to
begin October 22, 2001, and with the fact that respondent will
bear the burden of proof as to the increased deficiency, deprives
arguments of surprise or prejudicial delay of any overriding
force. We therefore conclude that the interests of justice will
be better served by permitting amendment and thereby being in a
position to decide this case, and the related case of Mr. Kassar,
consistently and on the merits of all relevant evidence.
Lastly, for the sake of completeness, we note that
petitioners’ computational arguments disregard possible
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011