- 5 -
disputes the deficiency and accuracy-related penalty determined
by respondent for that year.
Respondent objects to the granting of petitioners' motion
because, in respondent's view, to do so would confer jurisdiction
over a taxable year that otherwise would not come within the
Court's jurisdiction under the petition as on file and in respect
of which the statutory period for petitioning the Court expired
before the motion was filed.
Discussion
We begin our analysis with Rule 41(a), which governs
amendments to pleadings. As relevant herein, Rule 41(a) provides
as follows:
A party may amend a pleading * * * only by leave of
Court * * * and leave shall be given freely when
justice so requires. No amendment shall be allowed
after expiration of the time for filing the petition,
however, which would involve conferring jurisdiction on
the Court over a matter which otherwise would not come
within its jurisdiction under the petition as then on
file.* * *
This Court has been liberal in granting taxpayers leave to
amend in order to correct technical defects related to the
requirements prescribed by our Rules governing the form and
content of petitions. O'Neil v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 105, 107-
108 (1976). However, we may not permit a petition to be amended
if the amendment seeks to place in dispute an additional taxable
year in respect of which the statutory period for filing a
petition has expired. InverWorld, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011