Looks like Tax Court is giving the Supremes the Galatians 3:25 treatment again, as an IRS miscue gives Douglas Dodson and Rebecca Dodson, 162 T. C. 1, filed 1/3/24, an extra 57 (count ’em, 57) days to petition the SNOD. IRS’ attempt to revoke the erroneous dating of SNOD 1 with SNOD 2 stumbles over the last sentence of Section 6213(a), which says the date IRS puts as the last day to petition controls. That sentence was added by the 1998 IRS Restructuring and Reform Act, the wonderful enactment that gave us the Boss Hoss. The idea was to help the hapless petitioner who couldn’t figure out when to file by having IRS give a date certain.

There were two purported SNODs, issued one day apart. Both listed the identical years and taxes. The only difference was that SNOD 1, mailed in October, listed last day as December of following year, rather than January of that year. SNOD 2 “bears a stamped date specifying January [following year], as the last day to file a petition. The second notice is accompanied by a cover sheet stating: “PREVIOUS NOTICE SENT WITH INCORRECT DATE. CORRECTED NOTICE WITH CORRECT DATES.” The second notice does not differ from the first notice in any other material respect.” 162 T. C. 1, at p. 3 (Footnote omitted, but it says pages were in different order in SNOD 2; apparently doesn’t matter).

Doug and Rebecca claim they never got SNOD 2, and have USPS printouts for SNOD 2, not showing delivery.

Ex-Ch J L. Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel deals with this summarily. SNOD 1 is clearly a SNOD; all boxes checked, and the date is clear. No consent by petitioners to revoke SNOD 1 and sub in SNOD 2, so Section 6212(d) and Rev. Proc. 98-54, 1998-2 C.B. 529, 530 (10/26/98) are off the table, whether or not Form 8626 must be filed.

And that Doug and Rebecca had counsel is nothing to the point.

“Congress could have used narrower means to advance the purposes motivating the enactment of the last sentence of section 6213(a), but it did not. The last sentence of section 6213(a) advances the avowed congressional purpose of enabling taxpayers to rely on the IRS’s computation of the period for filing a petition, which is more than enough legislative history for us to hang our hat on, proverbially speaking. It is not our role to question Congress’s choice of means in this regard…. Likewise, we see no warrant in the statutory text for considering whether petitioners are represented by counsel or prejudiced by the first notice, as respondent would have us do.” 162 T. C. 1, at p. 8. (Citation omitted).

Taishoff says Congress knew lawyers can’t add, either.

Petition timely at Day 147, 57 days late. What price Antawn Jamal Sanders, eleven seconds late? And where’s our disciplinarian?