Any number of Tax Court cases go off on whether the SNOD was mailed to the “last known address” of the taxpayer. It is the taxpayer’s principal jurisdictional handle to dispute the tax sought to be collected in a CDP. It is often the reason that a petition is dismissed on the grounds that the SNOD is invalid if not so mailed.

But today, STJ Lewis (“Who Needs Spellcheck”) Carluzzo blows off the question. Because it really doesn’t matter.

This is the story of John Earl Beldon, Docket No. 6900-14, filed 1/5/15.

IRS moves to dismiss John Earl’s petition, on the usual grounds — John Earl was late.

John Earl was at all relevant times an involuntary guest of the State of Kentucky, and IRS was content to let John Earl remain in CNC as long as his guest status, which will run beyond the SOL.

The SNOD was mailed to an address not the same as on John Earl’s last filed tax return.

“Furthermore, petitioner did not advise respondent that the address shown on his most recently filed return was no longer valid. See sec. 301.6212-2(a), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Instead, the notice is addressed to petitioner at an address obtained by respondent after consulting the National Change of Address database maintained by the United States Postal Service (USPS). See sec. 301.6212-2(b)(2)(i), Proced. & Admin. Regs. According to petitioner, he did not submit a change of address to the USPS, and he did not otherwise authorize anyone to do so on his behalf.” Order, at p. 2.

John Earl wants IRS to drop the additions to tax and interest IRS keeps billing him, but STJ Lew says that those aren’t in Tax Court’s jurisdiction. Anyway, John Earl doesn’t dispute that he owes tax.

STJ Lew really isn’t interested.

“From a practical point of view it seems that dismissal of this case will have little negative effect on petitioner. After all, we could not in this proceeding address petitioner’s request that the additions to tax and interest be waived, and respondent has indicated that he has no intention to collect a tax that petitioner apparently agrees is owed.” Order, at p. 2..

But if John Earl and IRS want to fight, far be it from STJ Lew to stand in their way.

“Under different circumstances, we would address the issue of whether the notice was properly sent to petitioner’s last known address. We see little point to do so here not only for the practical reason just noted, but because petitioner’s incarceration has prevented a complete record on the point. That being so, we will leave that issue open to be disputed by the parties in a different forum if necessary.” Order, at p. 2.