Proof of mailing of the SNOD to petitioner’s last known address is so essential to the entire Section 6213 deficiency operation that ex-Ch J L. Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel’s exhaustive review in Brent Jason, Docket No. 25576-16L, filed 1/2/24, is required reading. If the SNOD is petitioner’s ticket to Tax Court, proof of mailing thereof to petitioner’s last known address is IRS’ key to the Tax Court door. Here, IRS doesn’t have the key.

“The administrative record contains insufficient proof of mailing for the [years at issue] deficiencies. Respondent has not produced, for example, a United States Postal Service (USPS) Form 3877, Firm Mailing Book for Accountable Mail. Any indication in the administrative record that the IRS actually mailed the [years at issue] notices of deficiency to petitioner is limited to (1) what appears to be a USPS tracking number on the front page of each notice of deficiency and (2) AO G’s statement that an assessment was properly made for each tax and period.

“Under similar circumstances, we have soundly rejected the argument that these two relatively meager indications of mailing are sufficient to prove that the IRS actually mailed a notice of deficiency to a taxpayer.” Order, at p. 8. (Name, footnote and citations omitted, but get ex-Ch J Iron Fist’s somber reasoning and her copious citations of precedent; it’s a drag-and-drop for your memorandum of law in any disputed mailing case.).

I do have to wonder why no one at IRS ran down those USPS tracking numbers. Even if wiped from the USPS online searchable website, there might be some USPS record showing whether any item so denominated ever entered the mailstream, and if so what if anything happened to it. While a USPS printout might not satisfy ex-Ch J Iron Fist, it sure beats what IRS proffered.

IRS’ NFTL for years at issue is tossed; no proper deficiencies.

Additionally, IRS’ attempt to correct its assessment of years-at-issue deficiencies from the SFRs it issued to reflect Brent’s late-filed returns fails. IRS needed to erase the old assessments and make new ones, not try to abate in part the old ones. See Order at pp. 8-9.

Not a great start to 2024 for IRS.