No, the above written is not a misprint. It’s the cry of Vincent Edward Mandley & Yolanda B. Mandley, Docket No. 1121-23, filed 8/15/25. And while Judge Benjamin A. (“Trey”) Guider, III, disallows Vin’s & Yo’s claim that IRS already levied for part of self-assesed but unpaid tax for Year Three for want of evidence, despite Appeals having given them eight (count ’em, eight) months to find same, Year One is at issue because of a blown assessment.

IRS and the Mandleys stiped out Year One five (count ’em, five) years ago.  And below Judge Albert G. (“Scholar Al”) Lauber’s signature, IRS and Vin & Yo set down what deficiency and add-ons were allocated to both and what to Vin individually.

Of course, when it came time to assess (that is, set down on IRS’ records, per Section 6203), IRS gave the wrong amounts to the wrong people. Now we all know that the “so-ordered” stip (to use our State court language) only comprises what the judge wrote “above the line” whereon s/he signed. But below the line matters signed off by both parties aren’t mere surplusage. See my blogpost “Below the Line,” 11/14/23, for the Rockafellor case, cited by Judge Trey Guider.

When IRS gave Vin & Yo a NITL for that year, Vin & Yo tried to get things set right at Appeals. The SO thought they were contesting liability when they contested the extra interest caused by the wrongful allocation of deficiency and add-ons, even though IRS conceded the error.

“The interest provision in Mr. Mandley’s original stipulated decision was a below-the-line stipulation, which does not constitute a finding by the Court and evidences only an agreement between the parties. See Rockafellor v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2023-137, at *15. There are multiple instances where a settlement officer considered a petitioner’s abatement of interest request despite the existence of a prior stipulated decision containing a below-the-line interest provision. The record indicates that SO2 did not consider the Mandleys’ interest abatement argument as required by section 6330(c)(3)(B). As such, an error of law occurred constituting an abuse of discretion, and summary judgment with respect to the [Year One] tax year is not appropriate.” Order, at p. 7. (Citations omitted).

So back to Appeals for Vin & Yo to sort out the interest.

Vin & Yo object that Appeals showed the NOD to IRS counsel before sending it to them, but Rev. Proc. 2012-18 says that’s OK.

“These guidelines expressly state that respondent’s counsel “should review the supplemental [NOD] before it is issued to the taxpayer. This review is for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with the Tax Court’s remand order.” Rev. Proc. 2012-18. Here, SO2 sent the supplemental NOD to respondent’s counsel in accordance with standard IRS procedure. This communication was proper and does not give rise to an abuse of discretion.” Order, at p. 6.