Judge Mark V (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes has suggested that stips of agreed issues may be invalid as to pro ses who are unjustly or oppressively overwhelmed thereby; see my blogpost “Couple Questions of Great Significance,” 9/27/22.

I’ve already stated my views; “stipulate, don’t capitulate” is my shibboleth. But there are exceptions.

William T. Ashford, T. C. Memo. 2022-101, filed 9/29/22, is a protester. And he gives away whatever hopes he had (and I don’t see too many), by stipulating to the source and amounts of wages and self-employment he got. And he frivols with “wages aren’t income” and Social Security Administration dropping his SE when IRS prematurely assessed tax. IRS lost his year at issue’s exam file, but  Wm can’t show that anything therein would help him now.

Wm claims SSA dropping his SE is a concession that he doesn’t owe. Judge Vasquez isn’t buying.

“To the contrary, the parties stipulated that petitioner had received $89,977 from [employer] for [year at issue]. They also stipulated the authenticity of a wage and income transcript showing that the $89,977 was reported as nonemployee compensation. Because petitioner’s argument conflicts with stipulated facts, it has no merit.  See Rule 91(e) (‘A stipulation shall be treated, to the extent of its terms, as a conclusive admission by the parties to the stipulation, unless otherwise permitted by the Court or agreed upon by those parties.’). T. C. Memo. 2022-101, at pp. 5-6. (Footnote omitted).

And Wm gets the Section 6673 yellow card from Judge Vasquez at no extra charge.

There are times when you might just as well capitulate.