- 13 -
prejudiced if it can present evidence as to the issues raised by
the amendment. See Steiner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-122;
see also Ross v. Houston Indep. School Dist., supra (upholding
denial of a motion for leave where the amendment would require
additional discovery, add 26 new parties, and likely require
several additional years for preparation and trial of the case);
cf. Kramer v. Commissioner, supra at 1085 (denying a motion for
leave filed after trial because the Commissioner could not offer
evidence as to the newly raised issue).
We also note that, aside from the statute of limitations
issue discussed above, petitioner appears to address only the
adjustments made in the FPAA. Thus, the instant case is not one
where the amendment would establish “an entirely new factual
basis” for the movant’s claims. Cf. Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
952 F.2d 841, 846 (5th Cir. 1992). In sum, any burden of
additional discovery does not overcome the factors in favor of
granting leave to amend. See Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp.,
supra.
Finally, respondent appears to argue that petitioner has
shown bad faith. Respondent contends that petitioner’s motion is
“an apparent attempt to escape judgment as a matter of law based
on respondent’s motion for summary judgment”. Respondent cites
several cases upholding the denial of a motion for leave to amend
that was filed after the opposing party had filed a motion for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007