No, not the Lloyd Bridges 1958 TV series; rather, this is the story of Adams Offshore Services, Ltd., Docket No. 5541-14, filed 12/9/14.

Adams was a drilling-baby in the Gulf of Mexico, sufficiently shelved on the North American Continent to fall foul of Industry Director’s Directive #1 – United States Outer Continental Shelf Activity, LMSB-4-0909-037 (October 28, 2009). And no, I didn’t know about it, either, but Section 638(1) places that part of the GOM, where Adams was drill-babying, within IRS’s grasp.

Apparently IRS searched some on-line nautical databases, and found Adams’ whereabouts. When IRS sent letters to Adams’ UK HQ, they were told that the person with the information wanted was dead. Further epistolary dealings revealed Adams had fled the fogs of Aberdeen, and finally revealed Adams fetched up in the warmth of Bahrain (and who would blame them, except that Aberdeen has 15-yr old Talisker whilst Bahrain is dry).

IRS’ crack Revenue Agent Tan Vuong had sussed out Adams’ whereabouts in the Emirate aforesaid and posted off a thirty-day letter to all three of the addresses found, and placed these addresses in the file. None of the letters came back.

But when crack Revenue Agent Tan Vuong forwarded his file to IRS Technical Services Office in Houston, TX (where one can both be warm and obtain whiskey), all the Texan Techies did was mail a SNOD to Aberdeen.

You can guess the rest, but I’ll tell you anyway.

Judge Dawson gets this one, and spends eleven (undesignated) pages on IRS’ losing motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

First, Adams’ high-priced counsel argues IRS’ counsel violated international law. No, not torture, although some who deal with IRS might claim that. In this case, it’s the Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, November 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361 (The Hague Service Convention).

That doesn’t cut it, says Judge Dawson. ”In short, the Hague Service Convention is limited to the transmission of judicial and extrajudicial documents for service of process abroad. It does not apply to a notice of deficiency, which is only a determination of a deficiency before an administrative assessment is made by the Internal Revenue Service. Section 6213(c). A notice of deficiency is not a judicial or extrajudicial document contemplated by the Hague Service Convention.” Order, at p. 7, footnote 5.

Those of us who sat through Pennoyer v. Neff and Mullane v. Hanover Bank in a previous millennium vaguely remember that notice must be given with some reasonable chance of reaching the party entitled to same.

I guess Judge Dawson remembered that too.

“When, as here, the IRS is faced with choosing more than one possible last known address and is in doubt as to the correct one, the exercise of due care and diligence is necessary so that the notice of deficiency will be received by the taxpayer in time to file a petition in this Court for a redetermination of the deficiency. Confronted with three different addresses for petitioner and in doubt as to which one was correct, we think respondent did not use due care and diligence in sending the notice of deficiency only to petitioner’s Aberdeen Address. Although we recognize that the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) does not have the force of law and is not binding on the IRS, respondent should have followed its own directive that ‘[i]f there is any doubt as to what the last known address is, additional duplicate original notices should be sent to each known address.’ IRM pt. 4.8.9.8.2.l(2) (July 9, 2013).” Order, at pp. 9-10 (citations omitted)

I understand IRS is short of money, but hopefully they can afford postage stamps.