- 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
motion.
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