No, not Jean-Paul Sartre’s 1943 opus, but rather Tax Court considering the effect of a corporation flickering in and out of existence. The corporation is John C. Hom & Associates, Inc., whose existential travails are more particularly bounded and described in 140 T. C. 11, filed 5/7/13.

John C. came into being in 1986, but was deprived of its powers, rights and privileges by the California Franchise Board in 2004. John C. thereby lapsed into nothingness, but while John C. sojourned in nothingness, in 2011 the IRS sent John C. a SNOD for some five years of income taxes, additions, penalties and interest.

Both SNOD and petition occurred in 2011, but John C. was restored to being in 2012, on the eve of trial.

IRS wants to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

John C. first argued the SNOD was defective because it gave the web address (URL) of the National Taxpayer Advocate, and not the address and telephone number, as required by Section 6212(a).

Judge Cohen dumps that one. Section 6212(a) doesn’t say the omission invalidates the SNOD, and anyway “…courts have held repeatedly that a notice of deficiency is valid if it notifies the taxpayer that a deficiency has been determined and gives the taxpayer the opportunity to petition this Court for redetermination of the proposed deficiency.” 140 T. C. 11, at p. 5. (Citations omitted).

John C., via its officer John C. Hom, did so petition. And he never showed he tried to contact NTA.

As for the existential question, Judge Cohen gives John C. short shrift: “Rule 60(c) states in part: ‘The capacity of a corporation to engage in such litigation [in this Court] shall be determined by the law under which it was organized.’ Petitioner’s corporate capacity was suspended at the time the petition was filed on June 13, 2011, and was not reinstated until April 2012, shortly before trial. Under the same scenario, in David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268 (2000), aff’d, 22 Fed. Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001), interpreting California law, we concluded that the Court lacked jurisdiction. That case is controlling here.” 140 T.C. 11, at p. 9.

So John C. is flung back into nothingness, except that it can pay the tax and sue for a refund.