- 12 -
deciding whether to grant or deny petitioners’ motion for leave
to amend. See Kramer v. Commissioner, supra at 1085. In
exercising our discretion, we consider various factors, including
the timeliness of the motion, the reasons for the delay, and
whether granting the motion would result in issues being
submitted in a seriatim fashion. See Daves v. Payless Cashways,
Inc., 661 F.2d 1022, 1024 (5th Cir. 1981). Leave to amend may be
inappropriate when 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). Moreover, we deny a
taxpayer’s motion to amend a petition when the argument raised is
futile. See Russo v. Commissioner, supra.
In their present motion for leave to amend their petition,
petitioners argue that they should be relieved of the negligence
addition to tax because respondent has a duty to afford
substantially equal treatment to similarly situated taxpayers.
In their last-minute new argument, they suggest that respondent
and this Court lack discretion to reach different results as to
them, as contrasted with other taxpayers who accepted a standard
settlement offer made 11 years ago, before trial of the test
case.
Absent proof that a taxpayer has been singled out for
disparate treatment based on impermissible considerations such as
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