- 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 forPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007