-6-
filed and before the case was set for trial. The Court,
therefore, finds that respondent was not dilatory in moving to
amend the answer.
Petitioner further argues “that respondent is bound by the
doctrine of ‘abundant notice’ of any alleged facts of fraud and
self-acknowledged privity with the prior criminal proceedings,
wherein fraud allegations were made.” The Court is not aware of
a “doctrine of abundant notice”. Whatever notice respondent had
of the criminal proceedings is irrelevant to the issue of whether
respondent’s motion for leave should be granted.
Whether Petitioner Would Be Unduly Prejudiced
Petitioner argues that the motion should be denied because
the proposed amendment seeks to raise factual issues that would
require substantial preparation and trial time, whereas
collateral estoppel is a legal issue requiring fewer resources.
In Wyman-Gordon Co. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-433, the
Court denied the Commissioner’s motion for leave to amend his
answer to raise a new factual issue, finding that the amendment
prejudiced “petitioners’ efforts to obtain a resolution of the
other issues that were raised by respondent in a timely manner.”
Id.
In Wyman Gordon Co., the Commissioner filed his motion for
leave 4 days after calendar call and 11 months after filing his
answer. As discussed above, this case has not been set for trial
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008