Nizamettin Baykara, Docket No. 9874-25, filed 9/5/25, is fighting over his 2024 1040-SR. I filed one of those. They’re for senior citizens, old folks. I doubt too many of the are familiar with O’Rourke v. United States, 587 F.3d 537 (2nd Cir. 2009), quoting Olsen v. Helvering, 88 F.2d 650, 651 (2d Cir. 1937). Nevertheless, Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda tosses Nizamettin’s petition because none of the papers IRS sent him is a SND.

O’Rourke is just one of many cases that state substantially as follows: “‘Although the Code does not prescribe the appropriate content of a notice of deficiency, at a minimum it must identify the taxpayer, indicate that the Commissioner has made a determination of deficiency, and specify the taxable year and amount of the deficiency.’  Andrew Crispo Gallery, Inc. v. Comm’r, 16 F.3d 1336, 1340 (2d Cir.1994). The copy of the notice produced by the IRS in this case does all those things, even though half of the first page and the entire second page are missing.” (Footnote omitted, but it says that current SNDs need to include TAS notice and cutoff date when taxpayer must petition.)

Interesting, on the last point I have never seen IRS or any Tax Court judge or STJ deny that a SND is invalid because it did not have either the TAS notice (whether within the body of the SND or separately) or the Section 6213(a) petition cutoff date. The latter is most peculiar, given the inordinate stress Tax Court has placed on the jurisdictional function of Section 6213(a) in the face of Boechler. The 90-150 day cutoffs are immutable. See Hallmark Res. Collective.

Btw, the Olsen case above referred to and cited in O’Rourke says: “[T]he notice is only to advise the person who is to pay the deficiency that the Commissioner means to assess him;  anything that does this unequivocally is good enough․ [M]istakes in the notice which do not frustrate its purpose, are negligible.”  Olsen v. Helvering, 88 F.2d 650, 651 (2d Cir.1937).” (Footnote omitted.)

OK, so Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda says not one of the mass of documents Nizamettin submitted with his petition and again in reply to IRS’ motion to toss for want of a SND is a SND.

Taishoff says, first, how is Nizamettin or anyone not a tax pro to know what is or is not a SND, except by petitioning everything they get and waiting for Ch J Scholar Pat to tell them? Second, is either the TAS notice or the petition cutoff date a jurisdictional requirement for a SND? Congress apparently thought so. But IRS never raised that argument, or at least not loudly enough for Tax Court to rule, when claiming one of their billets doux wasn’t a SND. Finally, how long must we wait for IRS to promulgate a standard form of SND and issue same, so that there is no mistaking what is or is not a SND?