As Redd Evans and David Mann said in their 1941 hit, Taishoff says today.

The parties to William E. Frazier & Mary A. Frazier, et al., Docket No. 8427-14, filed 4/24/24, apparently did some Rule 155 beancounting, and ended the count with a whole bunch new numbers (hi, Judge Holmes), while leaving the guts of T. C. Memo. 2024-3, originally filed 1/8/24, corrected version filed 4/24/24, intact. For the 1/8/24 version, see my blogpost “LaLa Land,”1/8/24.

I suggest you check out Judge Morrison’s order, rather than try to slog through the 173 (count ’em, 173) pages of corrected T. C. Memo. 2024-3, while preparing a concordance (or discordance) between corrected and uncorrected versions.

Judge Morrison finds that the higher deficiency was the result of a Rule 41 tried-by-consent, after the parties stipulated.

“,,, we believe that by stipulating to amounts greater than the amounts determined in the notices of deficiency, the parties have tried these issues by consent. Section 6214(a) provides that the Tax Court has jurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount of deficiency even if the redetermined amount is greater than the amount originally determined in the notice of deficiency, as long as the greater amount was asserted by the IRS before or during trial. The IRS is considered to have asserted a claim for a greater deficiency if the parties try the issue by consent under Rule 41(b)(1), even if the IRS does not raise the issue in the notice of deficiency or in pleadings.” Order, at p. 2. (Citation omitted).

Ah, the Taishoff mantra: Stipulate, don’t capitulate. There! I’ve said it again.