Again misquoting Shakespeare, I turn to the story of Pengcheng Si, Docket No. 18748-18, filed 1/10/20, as told by that Obliging Jurist, Judge David Gustafson.

Pengcheng moves to toss the SNOD that brought him to Tax Court on the apparently viable ground that it was not mailed to Pengcheng’s last known address, and therefore invalid.

Judge Gustafson, as obliging as ever, assumes Pengcheng is right. That’s unusual, because I’d expect the USPS National Address database, Pengcheng’s previous returns, and a couple Forms PS3817 (hi, Judge Holmes) to get some play here.

But none of this matters, because Pengcheng’s petition arrived at Tax Court three (count ‘em, three) days before the 90-day window slammed shut. And it addressed all material details of the SNOD.

Judge Gustafson reminds us that “(O)ur jurisdiction thus depends on the timely filing of the petition, measured by reference to the date of mailing of the SNOD.” Order, at p. 2. And Pengcheng made the cutoff.

The “last known address” is a savings clause for IRS. Section 6212(b)(1) says it is “sufficient” if a SNOD is mailed to the taxpayer’s last known address. “That is, this subsection does not explicitly require mailing to any particular address but provides that mailing to the last-known address is ‘sufficient’.” Order, at p. 2.

But even if not mailed to the last known address, the SNOD is nevertheless valid if the taxpayer got it, by whatever means, in time to petition timely.

This clearly happened.

So let the Chambers administrator promptly call Pengcheng, because he’s on for trial on Monday.