Opinion
12597-22
01-11-2023
CRAIG S. METZ, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On August 15, 2022, petitioner filed a First Amended Petition. However, further review indicates that petitioner's First Amended 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 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 First Amended Petition, filed August 15, 2022, 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.