Darryl Shawn and Melonee Yevette Bundridge - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         

               Respondent moved pursuant to Rule 41(b) to increase the                
          deficiency.  See sec. 6214(a).  Rule 41(b)(1) provides that                 
               Issues Tried by Consent:  When issues not raised by the                
               pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the               
               parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they              
               had been raised in the pleadings.  The Court, upon motion of           
               any party at any time, may allow such amendment of the                 
               pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to              
               the evidence and to raise these issues, but failure to amend           
               does not affect the result of the trial of these issues.               
          Whether a motion seeking an amendment should be allowed is within           
          the sound discretion of the Court.  Commissioner v. Estate of               
          Long, 304 F.2d 136 (9th Cir. 1962).  If there is unfair surprise            
          or prejudice to the opposing party, then the motion to amend                
          should be denied.                                                           
               We do not find that granting respondent's motion to amend              
          would result in unfair surprise to petitioners.  In the notice of           
          deficiency, respondent listed an adjustment for "Gross Receipts             
          Sch. C." for 1992 and 1993, but respondent did not state a dollar           
          adjustment.  On the schedule B of the notice of deficiency, the             
          explanation for this adjustment stated that "[t]his issue has               
          been opened for examination and can still be audited."                      
               Petitioners did not object to respondent's oral motion to              
          conform the pleadings to the evidence.  Further, evidence                   
          necessary to decide the issue of the additional deficiencies was            
          presented at trial.  Petitioners did not object to testimony                
          regarding this matter and even questioned the witnesses about it.           
          Petitioners' pretrial memorandum included the following issues              




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011