By far the largest part of petitions filed in Tax Court are those where Tax Court has no jurisdiction. One would expect this in a court where 80% of petitioners are self-represented and where any courtroom experience a petitioner might have is not in an Article I Court. Still, one wonders at the utility of a court which spends most of its resources deciding that it can’t do anything.

First example, Morgan H. Orlins & Nanette P. Orlins, Docket No.  16203-25S, filed 3/13/25. The Orlinses’ bœuf is a denial of refund based on a Health Savings Account contribution, coming off a CP12 and Letter 474C. Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda trots out the jurisdictional boilerplate and finds neither is a SND. The Orlinses’ expansive view of Tax Court jurisdiction doesn’t clear the Congressional barricade surrounding the Glasshouse at 400 Second Street, NW.

Yes, I know, IRS’ current form of individual SND prominently state that it is a SND. But that of course is not the whole story.

“It is well settled that no particular form is required for the notice of deficiency to be valid. See Benzvi v.Commissioner, 787 F.2d1541,1542(11th Cir. 1986); Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 646, 655 (1982). The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the court to which this case is appealable barring a stipulation to the contrary, has held that the notice will be treated as valid if the Commissioner demonstrates that ‘the IRS has determined that a deficiency exists for a particular year and specify the amount of the deficiency.’ Stoecklin v. Commissioner, 865 F.2d 1221, 1224 (11th Cir. 1989) (quoting Benzvi v. Commissioner, 787 F.2d at 1542), aff’g. T.C. Memo. 1987-453.” See my blogpost “Scar Tissue,” 4/14/17.

So how is a petitioner to know what might be a SND, even if it doesn’t say so? The requirement that the SND provide contact info for TAS can apparently be satisfied even without the particularity mandated by Section 6212(a) that “such notice shall include a notice to the taxpayer of the taxpayer’s right to contact a local office of the taxpayer advocate and the location and phone number of the appropriate office.” See my blogpost “Being and Nothingness,” 5/7/13. Merely citing the TAS URL is sufficient.

Next, Carol Schellinck & Edward Schellinck, Docket No. 16098-26P, filed 3/13/26, another attempt to litigate underlying debt in a passport grab. Maybe so Notice CP508C should have written somewhere on it “IF YOU WANT TO CONTEST LIABILITY, DON’T WASTE YOUR TIME.”