- 15 -
Rather, petitioner argues that respondent should be
precluded by the stipulation from raising the issue. In
paragraph 6 the parties stipulated that for 1986 the total
deposits were $1,105,003. In paragraph 9 the parties stipulated
that the "unexplained deposits which remain at issue" for 1986
were $352,281. The problem with petitioner's position is that we
are not concerned here with unexplained deposits. To the
contrary, the amount in question admittedly was not deposited,
and respondent is not attempting to change the amount of deposits
which were the subject of the stipulation.12 Nor do we find
convincing petitioner's argument that he was surprised. It was
petitioner who brought the subject up during his testimony.
We recognize that any time there is an amendment to a
pleading that either increases or decreases a deficiency, there
is a pecuniary prejudice to the other party. But that is not the
prejudice we are concerned with here. Rather we are concerned
with whether petitioner was unfairly prejudiced in presenting his
case, and we do not find that type of prejudice. Thus, we will
allow respondent to amend the answer in docket No. 23725-95 to
increase the deficiency for 1986 by the tax on $5,713.
We next turn to the question whether petitioner had
unreported income during 1986 in the amount of $5,713. Since
12 Petitioner appears to argue that the parties stipulated
the amount of the deficiency for 1986. If, indeed, that were the
case, we are unsure of the reason for a 2-day trial.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011