Saul Bradley, T. C. Memo. 2023-7, filed 1/22/24, has not only had to face divorce and a death in his family, but two (count ’em, two) years’ worth of deficiencies and chops; and he hadn’t fIled for four successive years thereafter.

But IRS has problems, too. Saul claims he never got the SNOD, so IRS proffers a copy (redacted) of the USPS Form 3877 Proof of Mailing that causes Judge Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves to admonish IRS as first set forth at the head hereof.

“First, as redacted by respondent, we cannot discern whether Form 3877 was signed by the USPS employee who accepted delivery of the notice. A Form 3877 is not properly completed when a USPS employee does not sign the form. Thus, because the Form 3877 does not contain a visible signature of a USPS employee, it is not properly completed. We have previously held that this omission, together with other omissions, renders the presumption of proper mailing inapplicable.

“The other error on Form 3877 relates to the name stamp appearing on the form. This stamp appears to be the name of the IRS employee who issued the notice of deficiency. Form 3877 must be signed or initialed by the IRS agent who issued the notice. We previously held that a stamp signature from a receiving USPS employee was a defect on Form 3877, sufficient when combined with other omissions to prevent application of the presumption of proper mailing. Knudsen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-69, at *6–7, *14–16. Because both the IRS agent and the USPS employee are required by IRS procedure to sign Form 3877, we see no reason why we should treat the stamped signature of the IRS agent in this case differently from the stamped signature of the USPS employee in Knudsen. Therefore, the stamped signature of the IRS agent is a defect on Form 3877. These two errors render the presumption of proper mailing inapplicable.” T. C. Memo. 2023-7, at pp. 6-7. (Citations omitted, but get them for your memo of law file; for the Knudsen story, see my blogpost “Great, But No Substitute,” 4/7/15).

But all is not lost for IRS, although it is for Saul.

“While this evidence is not sufficient to create a presumption of proper mailing, respondent may still satisfy his burden to show proper mailing of the notice of deficiency if the evidence of mailing is otherwise sufficient. An incomplete certified mailing list may serve as evidence that the notice of deficiency was properly mailed to a taxpayer. Here, the possible defects in Form 3877 are minor. Form 3877 bears the USPS stamp, specifies the number of articles received, and lists petitioner’s name and address. Respondent also introduced a copy of the notice of deficiency, which bears the same mailing date and mailing address as the corresponding Form 3877. Petitioner does not contest that the address listed on Form 3877 and the copy of the notice of deficiency was not [sic] his last known address. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that respondent mailed the notice of deficiency to petitioner at his last known address.” T. C. Memo. 2023-7, at p. 7 (Citations and footnote omitted). I think you meant “Petitioner does not contest that the address listed on Form 3877 and the copy of the notice of deficiency was his last known address,” Judge.

IRS, better stamp out stamps, lest the next time you may not be so lucky.