- 11 -
to petitioners on June 1, 1992. Petitioners again declined or at
least failed to sign the piggyback agreement.
At trial, petitioner testified that he could not recall
whether he had received piggyback agreements and that he would
have responded to a piggyback offer if he had received one. In
his posttrial brief, petitioner conceded that he had received
respondent’s June 1, 1992, letter. However, there is no evidence
in the record that indicates that petitioners responded to the
piggyback offers.
Discussion
Rule 41(a) provides: “A party may amend a pleading once as
a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is
served. * * * Otherwise a party may amend a pleading only by
leave of Court or by written consent of the adverse party.” Rule
41(a) further provides that leave to amend “shall be given freely
when justice so requires.” This Court has looked to cases
decided under rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
for guidance on the interpretation of Rule 41(a). See Kramer v.
Commissioner, 89 T.C. 1081, 1084-1085 (1987). Rule 15(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, like Rule 41(a), mandates that
leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.”
Petitioners’ motion for leave was not filed before the
responsive pleading, and respondent has not consented to the
motion. Accordingly, the Court must use its discretion in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011