A reprise of my blogpost “Where Art Thou”, 5/21/12, but Marianne Pretscher-Johnson, Docket No. 14632-14L, filed 4/3/15, isn’t as lucky as Sean Devlin, the star of my 5/21/12 blogpost abovecited.

CSTJ Panuthos notes MPJ hasn’t filed returns for years, although she never claims she isn’t required to do so, and has left behind her a trail of SFRs.

This time, she admits she got an NFTL for one year at issue, and that went to the right address, but she never petitioned, so no NOD and no jurisdiction. So IRS has its lien perfected.

But MPJ claims as to the other two years at issue that she never got NFTLs, as whatever IRS sent went somewhere other than her last-known address.

Now on what ground a petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, as I’ve blogged before, matters. If petitioner never got the NFTL because it was misdirected, then no lien; but if mailed to last known address and petitioner missed the thirty-day cutoff to petition, the lien stands.

CSTJ Panuthos: “Respondent provided the Court with a certified copy of the Integrated Data Retrieval System, Command Code FINDS (Name Search Facility For An Individual, names and address information, using the Social Security Number) printout dated October 6, 2014 (FINDS report). The document reflects addresses used for petitioner by respondent during various periods from 1998 through 2013. Counsel for respondent explained that, since petitioner had not filed a tax return since 2001, the various addresses reflected for petitioner in this document after 2001 come from either the United States Postal Service National Change of Address database or from notice of a change of address provided to respondent by the taxpayer. The… address was petitioner’s address in the FINDS report from the third week of 2008 until the 37th week of 2013.

“Petitioner received a Letter No. 2797… requesting that petitioner update her address with respondent. Counsel for respondent explained that when respondent receives Forms 1099 or other third-party documents indicating an address different from the address in respondent’s database, respondent will send Letter No. 2797, because only direct notification to respondent or notification to the United States Postal Service is sufficient to cause respondent to change a taxpayer’s last known address in his database. When petitioner received Letter No. 2797, she did not provide a written change of address as requested in the letter. Petitioner asserts that…she called respondent at the toll-free number on the letter and confirmed that her address was X. Respondent has no record of this telephone call.” Order, at p. 2. (Address omitted).

Now comes facts and circumstances, and burden of proof is on petitioner to establish that she notified IRS of her change of address. Telephone calls don’t cut it. No proof of written notice knocks MPJ out of the box.

Takeaway–If you get a Letter 2797, reply by certified mail at once.