- 24 - the Commissioner may have been different or unsound. Blansett v. United States, 283 F.2d 474, 478 (8th Cir. 1960); Smith v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 263, 291 n.17 (1971); Wilkes-Barre Carriage Co. v. Commissioner, 39 T.C. 839, 845-846 (1963), affd. 332 F.2d 421 (2d Cir. 1964). It is the Court’s right and obligation to decide the case upon what it considers to be the correct application of the law, based upon the record presented, whether the parties have properly pleaded the controlling issues or not. * * * if the Court feels that a full and fair opportunity to present the facts has been given, and the Court feels that no further briefing on the law is necessary, the Court can go forward and decide the case on the record presented. [Barnette v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-595, affd. without published opinion sub nom. Allied Management Corp. v. Commissioner, 41 F.3d 667 (11th Cir. 1994).] There is no reason to believe that petitioners have been prejudiced by our resolution of the case. Considering petitioners’ evidentiary showing at trial and arguments on brief, we are satisfied that they had sufficient opportunity to prove the relevant facts and would not have presented their case any differently, even if they had been fully and correctly advised by the notice of deficiency or respondent’s pleadings of the intricate and interrelated provisions of the Code that govern the tax consequences of the business reincorporation transaction. To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered under Rule 155.Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Last modified: May 25, 2011