Fresh off admonishing IRS’ counsel to tidy up their exhibits (see my blogpost “Obliging? He’ll Unscramble Your Papers,” 11/1/23), Judge David Gustafson delivers a sermonette on “the bedrock of Tax Court practice,” stipulations.

And while the title hereof is the gist thereof, Judge Gustafson’s words are worth repeating.

“To state a truism, if facts are not disputed, then they should be stipulated. We acknowledge that a certain modest amount of horse-trading goes on in the stipulation process, but it is not permissible for a party to hold undisputed facts hostage to force the other party to stipulate other facts. Likewise, while Rule 91(a)(2) directs that stipulations be ‘comprehensive’, it is also not permissible for a party to refuse to stipulate until he believes that the stipulation is comprehensive enough. Multiple stipulations can be filed in a single case. It often makes sense to stipulate first the low-hanging fruit and to keep working on the more difficult matters. Authenticity of documents is often a relatively easy matter for stipulation; and the significance of those documents may later be agreed upon in a subsequent stipulation–or, if not, that significance may be a subject of trial.” Order, at p. 2.

And, of course, don’t capitulate.

The case is Marc Forschino, Docket No. 13967-22, filed 11/2/23.