-5- Whether Respondent Failed To Exercise Due Diligence In Chanik v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1972-174, affd. 492 F.2d 1181 (6th Cir. 1974), the Court denied the Commissioner’s motion to amend his answer to allege fraud rather than negligence for the taxpayer’s 1961 tax year. The Court found that the Commissioner failed to exercise due diligence in alleging fraud because he investigated the taxpayer’s 1961 tax year for 6 years before the issuance of a notice of deficiency, he issued a notice of deficiency for 1958, 1959, and 1960 which alleged fraud for those years shortly after issuing the 1961 notice, and the motion to amend was made at the time of trial. Id. In Commissioner v. Estate of Long, 304 F.2d 136 (9th Cir. 1962), the court denied a motion to amend the answer to assert additional deficiencies in excess of the amounts determined in the notice of deficiency. The Court found that the Commissioner took no action for over 4 years, from the time of filing the original answer until 2 days before the date of a hearing on an order to show cause why the Court should not enter decisions when the taxpayer consented to decisions based on the amounts determined in the notice of deficiency. Id. at 143. Respondent is not asserting additional deficiencies or penalties as the Commissioner did in Chanik and Estate of Long. Respondent affirmatively alleged fraud in his answer, and the motion was made less than 4 months after the original answer wasPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: March 27, 2008