- 21 - Respondent's proposed amendment now seeks to assert that petitioners owe taxes on that additional $2.8 million of unreported income, plus additional penalties for fraud. Whether a motion seeking amendment should be allowed lies within the sound discretion of the Court. Rule 41(a); Estate of Quick v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 172, 178 (1998); Law v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 985, 990 (1985). In deciding the justice of a proposed amendment, we must examine the particular circumstances in the case before us. Estate of Quick v. Commissioner, supra; Law v. Commissioner, supra. We consider, among other factors, whether an excuse for the delay exists and whether the opposing party would suffer unfair surprise, disadvantage, or prejudice if the motion to amend were granted. Estate of Quick v. Commissioner, supra; Nolte v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-57, affd. without published opinion 99 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 1996); Estate of Ravetti v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-697; Spain v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1978-270. Respondent's motion appears to indicate a change in position. In respondent's response to petitioners' Revised Interrogatory No. 40, respondent earlier indicated that, although respondent lacks direct evidence that the $2.8 million from petitioner's allocution was included in computing the determined deficiency, the circumstantial evidence that this amount has been included is "compelling". Our own review of respondent'sPage: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011