Opinion
7532-19
10-07-2021
Carolyn Denise Friedman Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge.
On September 20, 2021, petitioner filed an Amendment to Petition Embodying Amendment. However, further review indicates that petitioner's Amendment to Petition Embodying Amendment 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 shall state the reasons for the amendment and shall be accompanied by the proposed amendment. The amendment to the pleading shall not be incorporated into the motion but rather shall be separately set forth and consistent 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 petitioner's Amendment to Petition Embodying Amendment, filed September 20, 2021, is recharacterized as petitioner's Motion for Leave to Amend Petition Embodying Amendment. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Leave To Amend Petition Embodying Amendment is denied.
The Court encourages all litigants to register for electronic access (eAccess) so that they may electronically file and view documents in their Tax Court cases. If you currently file in paper and/or receive paper service from the Court, you are encouraged to register for eAccess by emailing dawson.support@ustaxcourt.gov.
1