I have often praised the volunteers who show up to render assistance to hapless pro ses at trial session calendar calls. But their aid is unavailable when motion practice is on the menu, when their aid can be even more necessary.

A many-times-told tale, Christopher W.E. Jones & Sarah Jones, Docket No. 7514-25, filed 12/12/25, gets tossed when IRS Notice CP71C turns out not the be a SND.

And that, even though “Section 6212(a) authorizes the issuance of a notice of deficiency, and while that section does not prescribe any particular form, at a minimum the notice must ‘(1) advise the taxpayer that the IRS has determined that a deficiency exists for a particular year, and (2) specify the amount of the deficiency or provide the information necessary to compute the deficiency.’ The notice must fulfill the purpose of providing formal notification to the taxpayer that a deficiency in tax against that taxpayer has been determined. The purpose of a notice of deficiency is to advise the taxpayer that ‘the Commissioner means to assess him; anything that does this unequivocally is good enough.'” Order, at p. 2. (Citations omitted).

Ch J Patrick J. Urda says Notice CP71C falls short. “…the Notice CP71C does not state that it is a notice of deficiency, nor that the IRS has determined a deficiency or intends to assess a tax. Rather, the Notice CP71C merely informs petitioners that they still owe a balance in their federal income tax for taxable year 2019.” Order, at p. 3.

If the shortfall arises from incomplete payment of self-reported tax that IRS concedes is correct, then there is no deficiency. The tax shown on the return is the tax due.

But is that the case here? Faced with IRS’ motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction (no SND), Petitioners “filed a one-page document, characterizing it as a ‘Motion to Withdraw,’ in which they ‘ask [the] Court to Withdraw return 2019.’ Petitioners’ Motion to Withdraw provides no additional information describing the relief it seeks (or addressing the jurisdictional question pending before the Court).” Order, at p. 3.

This is a case for the calendar call commandos. But this case never got to calendar call. The “motion to withdraw” should have prompted direction to a LITC.