- 3 -
Commissioner, 89 T.C. 1081, 1084-1085 (1987). Like Rule 41(a),
rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that
leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.”
In this case, the motion for leave was not filed before the
responsive pleading, and respondent has not consented to the
motion. The Court may use its discretion to grant petitioners
leave to amend. See Kramer v. Commissioner, supra at 1085. In
exercising that discretion, the courts consider various factors,
including the timeliness of the motion, the reasons for the
delay, and whether granting the motion would result in issues
being presented in a seriatim fashion. See Daves v. Payless
Cashways, Inc., 661 F.2d 1022, 1024 (5th Cir. 1981). Leave to
amend may be inappropriate where there is undue delay, bad faith,
prejudice resulting from the amendment, or a dilatory motive of
the movant. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Russo
v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 28, 31 (1992).
The liberal attitude towards amendment is reflective of the
liberal policy generally applied to pleadings. “The Federal
Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in
which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and
accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to
facilitate a proper decision on the merits.” Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 48 (1957). Rather, pleadings should be construed to
do “substantial justice.” Id. Even where, as here, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011