Keith M. Phillips, T. C. Memo. 2024-44, filed 4/16/24, presents Judge Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves with a postal reverse. The usual mailed-to-last-known-address SNOD scuffle has petitioner claiming they changed address, and IRS claiming they didn’t. Here, Keith claims he never changed (he was in jail at the time), but his now-deceased ex-spouse, or his son, Keith M. Phillips, Jr., might have done.

So Judge Tag Greaves compares the USPS National Change of Address (NCOA) database datadump to IRS, with how IRS followed the Regs to update its Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS). And Judge Tag Greaves finds IRS didn’t.

But one might ask, “who cares?”

Keith claims improper mailing, but wants Tax Court to keep jurisdiction. All my sophisticated readers will cry with one voice “Improper mailing, invalid SNOD, no jurisdiction!” And they’re right. IRS claims SNOD properly sent, petition way late, no jurisdiction. And IRS is right.

And, as you’ll see at the foot hereof, it really doesn’t matter.

But Tax Court does have jurisdiction to decide why it doesn’t have jurisdiction, and Judge Tag Greaves is just the man to do it.

First, BoP. Almost always on petitioner, but here IRS has all the info on how it matched IDRS with NCOA, so IRS has to show they did it. Now last-known-address is a safe harbor; if mailed there, whether actually received or not is immaterial. But if sent elsewhere, petitioner has to have gotten it in time to petition. And Keith didn’t.

But USPS’ system for verifying hardcopy change-of-address forms is admittedly porous, T. C. Memo. 2024-44, at p. 7, footnote 8.

IRS does have presumption-of-regularity, and they sustain that. But Keith proves he was in jail, so maybe Junior was the one who sent the change of address; hence a mismatch.

Anyway, the IDRS transcripts don’t show what, if anything, IRS did to match the NCOA to what the IDRS transcripts they proffer show.

“We do not have to reach the question of whether respondent can generally rely on the IDRS to show evidence of compliance with the last known address regulation. The transcripts respondent provided contain no information relating to the process of matching petitioner’s information to the NCOA Notification…, only the result of such process. Even if the IDRS may be used as evidence of compliance with the regulation, the transcripts provided in this case are not competent and persuasive evidence of respondent’s compliance.” T. C. Memo. 2024-44, at p. 14. IRS loses that one.

And to make matters worse, IRS waffles.

“Respondent’s inconsistent explanations for the change of address further diminish the credibility of the transcripts. In his reply, respondent appears to argue that third-party reporting regarding petitioner’s ex-wife supported his decision to update petitioner’s last known address. Reliance on third-party reporting, excluding the USPS, to update petitioner’s last known address would violate the regulation. See Treas. Reg. § 301.6212-2(b)(1). Respondent asserted the new theory that the change of address was the result of an NCOA Notification in his second supplement to his motion. Respondent failed to provide an explanation for this change in position.” T. C. Memo. 2024-44, at p. 14.

Besides, the FINDSD didn’t match the IMFOLE on the address update previous to the one at issue, although all the others did. Hence, IRS loses.

Judge Tag Greaves dismisses sua sponte for invalid SNOD.

But, lest Keith reach too soon for the Veuve Cliquot Rosé, there’s a footnote.

“Nothing in this Opinion should be construed as limiting respondent’s ability to issue petitioner a new notice of deficiency for [year at issue] that is properly mailed to petitioner’s last known address.” T. C. Memo. 2024-44, at p. 15, footnote 10.

It seems Keith never filed a return for year at issue, so SOL wide open.