Since they're already unable to keep up with their current workload, and it will take time for them to staff up, no, I don't think this will give them enough staff to do substantially more auditing of 2021 taxes unless, for some reason, they decide to keep neglecting more recent years in order to do that. Some? Sure. A lot more, enough to make the audit-rate graph in the article look noticeably different? Nah, doesn't make sense, even if their motivations and purposes are what you imply.

So no, that's not what the "smart money" says. If the staff increase were 2x what's proposed, sure, maybe. As it is I expect them to mostly use those resources to make the chart in the article go up for FY 2022 and on, though I'll be surprised if they manage to reach 1990s levels of audit rates.

I think what's happened here is you got caught either misreading or deliberately ignoring parts of my post in order to bring up something that's bugging you and you wanted an excuse to post about, and instead of going "oops, my bad" you're digging in. So now you're trying to relate your thing back to 2021 so you can pretend it was ever relevant to the discussion. That's not making it look any better, incidentally.