- 17 - constitute an abuse of discretion if the taxpayer was not currently in compliance with Federal tax laws. E.g., Rodriguez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-153; Moorhous v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-183; Londono v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-99. B. Petitioner’s Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Petition We shall begin with petitioner’s motion for leave to file second amended petition. Rule 41(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be given freely when justice so requires.” In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), the Supreme Court stated that leave to amend may be inappropriate where there is: any apparent or declared reason--such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. * * * With respect to a motion to amend, a significant inquiry is whether or not the moving party would prevail on the merits. Russo v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 28, 31 (1992). 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). On October 7, 2005, petitioner filed a motion for leave to file second amended petition. Respondent objects to the granting of this motion, and, we therefore must use our discretion inPage: 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