Opinion
26587-22
07-05-2023
SCOTT RICKERT & LISA RICKERT, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
On June 25, 2023, petitioners filed a First Amendment to Petition. However, further review indicates that petitioners' First Amendment to Petition appears to be more akin to a Motion for Leave to Amend Petition Embodying Amendment. Such motion was not in compliance with Rule 41 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, insofar as the proposed amendment to the pleading was not lodged contemporaneously with the filing of the motion.
In pertinent part, Rule 41(a) of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that "A motion for leave to amend a pleading must state the reasons for the amendment and must be accompanied by the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment to the pleading must be separately set forth and comply with the requirements of Rule 23 regarding form and style of papers filed with the Court." Stated otherwise, the amendment to the pleading should be set forth in a separate document and lodged at the same time that a motion for leave to amend is filed.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that petitioners' First Amendment to Petition, filed June 25, 2023, is recharacterized as petitioners' Motion for Leave to Amend Petition Embodying Amendment. It is further
ORDERED that petitioners' Motion for Leave to Amend Petition Embodying Amendment is denied.