Wade V. Shang - Page 6




                                         -6-                                          
          filed and before the case was set for trial.  The Court,                    
          therefore, finds that respondent was not dilatory in moving to              
          amend the answer.                                                           
               Petitioner further argues “that respondent is bound by the             
          doctrine of ‘abundant notice’ of any alleged facts of fraud and             
          self-acknowledged privity with the prior criminal proceedings,              
          wherein fraud allegations were made.”  The Court is not aware of            
          a “doctrine of abundant notice”.  Whatever notice respondent had            
          of the criminal proceedings is irrelevant to the issue of whether           
          respondent’s motion for leave should be granted.                            
          Whether Petitioner Would Be Unduly Prejudiced                               
               Petitioner argues that the motion should be denied because             
          the proposed amendment seeks to raise factual issues that would             
          require substantial preparation and trial time, whereas                     
          collateral estoppel is a legal issue requiring fewer resources.             
          In Wyman-Gordon Co. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-433, the               
          Court denied the Commissioner’s motion for leave to amend his               
          answer to raise a new factual issue, finding that the amendment             
          prejudiced “petitioners’ efforts to obtain a resolution of the              
          other issues that were raised by respondent in a timely manner.”            
          Id.                                                                         
               In Wyman Gordon Co., the Commissioner filed his motion for             
          leave 4 days after calendar call and 11 months after filing his             
          answer.  As discussed above, this case has not been set for trial           







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008