Crop Associates - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
                    4.  Conclusion                                                    
               Since the amendment would add to the petition the defense of           
          equitable recoupment, which is not appropriate to this                      
          proceeding, that is a sufficient ground on which to deny the                
               B.  Substantial Disadvantage                                           
                    1.  Introduction                                                  
               Although respondent’s second objection describes a                     
          sufficient ground to deny the motion, we proceed to consider                
          respondent’s third objection, since it provides an independent              
          and equally persuasive reason to deny the motion.                           
               Respondent argues that, even if equitable recoupment is a              
          partnership item or is otherwise appropriate for consideration in           
          this proceeding, the motion should be denied because of the                 
          substantial disadvantage that respondent would be put under on              
          account of the amendment.  Respondent points out that the                   
          petition was filed over 9 years ago and the case is scheduled for           
          trial at a special session of the Court to commence on October 4,           
          1999.  The motion was made on July 14, 1999.  Respondent claims:            
          “The facts surrounding the items on this return will be                     
          difficult, at best, to determine.  As a result of the tax matters           
          partner’s long delay in waiting to raise the issue, respondent is           
          unduly prejudiced.”  Intervenor responds that there is no                   
          prejudice to respondent “because all of the relevant facts                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011