- 10 - matter of right but is within the discretion of the Court. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 401 U.S. 321, 330-333 (1971); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Kramer v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. at 1085; Law v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 985, 990 (1985). The trial court’s ruling on this matter will not be reversed unless the trial court abuses its discretion. Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 705 F.2d 1515, 1520 (9th Cir. 1983); Law v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. at 990. Denials of motions for leave to amend are generally based on undue delay, and the possibility of bad faith. Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 705 F.2d at 1520; Kramer v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. at 1085; see Charpentier v. Godsil, 937 F.2d 859, 863-864 (3d Cir. 1991). In determining the justice of a proposed amendment, we must examine the particular circumstances in the case before us, for the exercise of discretion “`may never be arbitrary and must be controlled by sound reason and fairness.’” Law v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. at 990 quoting California Brewing Association v. Commissioner, 43 B.T.A. 721, 725 (1941). Petitioners’ counsel should have seen paragraph 7 in the answer. Although paragraph 8 is twice as long as paragraph 7, paragraph 7 covers all the income adjustments and applies to both petitioners, while paragraph 8 covers collateral estoppel as to only Anthony and only as to one issue. If paragraph 7 isPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011