- 18 -
deciding whether to grant or deny petitioner’s motion for leave.
See Kramer v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 1081, 1084-1085 (1987).
In the motion for leave, petitioner argues that the proposed
second amended petition adequately sets forth the grounds for
errors in respondent’s determination, as well as the facts in
support thereof, to apprise the Court and respondent of
petitioner’s actual litigating position. Significantly, however,
petitioner’s proposed second amended petition principally raises
the same issues that are addressed, and supported by exhibits, in
respondent’s motion for summary judgment, as supplemented, which
is discussed in detail below. See Discussion, infra par. C.
The proposed second amended petition, however, raises, for
the first time, the issue of interest.10 Specifically,
petitioner alleges that he is not liable for interest assessed
under section 6601 because it was not determined in the notice of
deficiency and, in the alternative, that respondent incorrectly
computed the amount of accrued interest. Assuming arguendo that
10 Petitioner’s proposed second amended petition also
raised for the first time a challenge to an addition to tax under
“sec. 6651(a)(3)”. As previously discussed, the record reflects
that respondent assessed an addition to tax under sec.
6651(a)(2), and not sec. 6651(a)(3). Respondent, however,
conceded that petitioner is not liable for the addition to tax
under sec. 6651(a)(2), and has indicated that the addition (and
related interest) will be abated.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011