Tax Court In Brief | TBL Licensing LLC Et Al v. Commissioner | Amending Pleadings In The Tax Court

• Published date: 19 July 2022
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Tax, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Tax Authorities
• Law Firm: Freeman Law
• Author: Freeman Law

The Tax Court in Brief - July 11th - July 15th, 2022

Freeman Law's "The Tax Court in Brief" covers every substantive Tax Court opinion, providing a weekly brief of its decisions in clear, concise prose.

For a link to our podcast covering the Tax Court in Brief, download here or check out other episodes of The Freeman Law Project.

Tax Litigation: The Week of July 11th, 2022, through July 15th, 2022

• Colbert v Commissioner T.C. Memo. 2022-74 | July 13, 2022 |Wells, J.| Dkt. No. 8395-16.
• Knight v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2022-76| July 14, 2022?| Lauber, A. | Dkt. No 11719-20L
• Kelly v. Comm'r, No. 13353-21L, T.C Memo 2022-73 | July 13, 2022 | Lauber |
• Larochelle v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2022-12 | July 12, 2022 | Leyden | Dkt 10416-20S

TBL Licensing LLC f.k.a. The Timberland Company, and Subsidiaries (A Consolidated Group), v. Comm'r, T.C. Memorandum 2022-71| July 12, 2022 | Halpern, J. | Dkt. Nos. 21146-15.

Short Summary: This case discusses whether the Court should have granted a motion for leave to amend a pleading filed after 6 ' years after the filing of a petition. This opinion supplements a prior opinion TBL Licensing LLC & Subs. v. Commissioner, No. 21146-15, 158 T.C. (Jan. 31, 2022) that adjudicated a $504,691,690 tax deficiency determination.

In this case, the case was decided on Motions for Summary Judgment and the Tax Court entered an Order and Decision (see TBL Licensing LLC & Subs. v. Commissioner, No. 21146-15, 158 T.C. (Jan. 31, 2022)) on February 9, 2022. After such decision, respondent filed a Motion to Vacate the decision to state the amount of the upheld deficiency (to not simply refer to the notice of deficiency (NOD)). Petitioner opposed such motion arguing that the deficiency should be reduced with a research credit that was claimed in an amended return filed after the issuance of the NOD.

The Court vacated the previous Order and Decision and before entering a new one, allowed petitioner to submit an "appropriate motion". Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to amend its petition, to include its claim to a research credit.

The Court denied petitioner's Motion for Leave stating that the petitioner failed to offer an explanation for its lengthy delay to raise its research credit claim. In this case, justice did not require granting the motion.

Key Issues: Whether justice requires granting a motion for leave to amend a pleading under Rule 41(a) depends on the facts and circumstances of the case? Is the presence or absence of...