claims. Second, it gives the Commissioner the opportunity to correct errors and to limit the scope of issues at trial. Id.; Union Pac. R.R. v. United States, 182 Ct.Cl. 103, 108, 389 F.2d 437 (1968). The doctrine is primarily concerned with the prevention of taxpayer-plaintiff’s “lying in the weeds” with an alternate claim or alternate factual basis for a claim, and then bringing it before the court and on the unsuspecting defendant. When the above policies would not be furthered, the court has not invoked the variance doctrine. Various exceptions - to the rule have been carved out. The Claims Court has refused to invoke the variance doctrine when the IRS has had notice of the different grounds asserted. See Deluxe Check Printers, Inc. v. United States, 15 Cl.Ct. 175 (1988) (J. Gibson) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, this court refused to apply the
holding that where plaintiff did not seek to rescind a contract and only sought quantum meruit recovery after a jury had determined an enforceable contract existed plaintiff was limited to recovery under the contract holding that the irs has notice of plaintiffs alternate ground of recovery because it had considered and evaluated the applicability of the code provision under which the plaintiff sought recovery holding that suits which seek no recovery from state funds but rather allege that recovery is sought under and up to the limits of the states liability insurance coverage fall outside the traditional constitutional bar to suits against the state holding that the avoidance powers provide for recovery only if the recovery is for the benefit of the estate holding statutory notice requirement of workers compensation statute was not an independent ground of recovery thus the notice element could be the subject of a deemed finding