- 5 -
See Genesis Oil & Gas v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 562 (1989);
Rodgers v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 711 (1972). For the reasons
stated below, we deny petitioner’s motion to amend the petition.7
Rule 41(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be given
freely when justice so requires.” In exercising its discretion,
the Court may deny petitioner’s motion for leave to amend if
permitting an amended petition would be futile. Klamath-Lake
Pharm. Association v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276,
1293 (9th Cir. 1983); Estate of Ravetti v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1992-697.
Petitioner contends that once this Court’s jurisdiction has
been properly invoked under section 6015(e), we also have
jurisdiction to decide whether the period of limitations for
assessing tax has expired. Respondent opposes petitioner’s
motion contending that when the Court’s jurisdiction is based on
section 6015(e), the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to whether
the taxpayer is entitled to relief from an existing joint and
several liability on the basis of the specific relief provisions
contained in section 6015.
6(...continued)
(1973).
7Petitioner has not alleged in her petition or proposed
amendment that the expiration of the period of limitations is a
“factor” to be considered in deciding whether she is entitled to
equitable relief under sec. 6015(f).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011