Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler sorts it out, and IRS’ proof falls short in Dania Wales, T. C. Memo. 2026-82, filed 9/3/26. IRS wants to toss Dania’s innocent spousery petition because she filed her Form 8857 too late after CCISO issued a Final Notice of Determination (FND), arguing no jurisdiction.
No doubt there was a FND or that it was mailed to Dania’s last known address, unclaimed, and ultimately returned to CCISO.
Except.
All IRS can established is that it was sent first class presorted. And neither the famous USPS online tracking number nor certification from a USPS paralegal can help.
“We acknowledge that respondent has furnished a USPS Tracking Plus Statement that includes the tracking history for the Final Determination Notice’s specific tracking number, as well as a separate certification by a USPS paralegal regarding the accuracy of the Tracking Plus Statement. The USPS Tracking Plus Statement, however, fails to indicate whether the contents of the letter were sent by certified or registered mail. Further, the tracking number itself does not indicate that it was sent via certified or registered mail. Finally, the certification respondent offers from the USPS paralegal fails to state whether the Final Determination Notice was sent by certified or registered mail.
“This type of documentary evidence falls short of what we have accepted in the past to show proper mailing in situations where the Commissioner does not present a Form 3877.” T. C. Memo. 2026-82, at p. 6.
Section 6015(e)(1)(A) sets forth the relevant time and mailing constraints.
Tax Court has jurisdiction.
A Taishoff “Good Job” to Dania’s trusty attorneys Chris, Brian, and Jason.
Taishoff Law 
According to the USPS, “First-Class Mail postcards, letters and flats are not eligible for USPS Tracking service. However, letters and flats are eligible for extra services, like Certified Mail® and Registered Mail™ services, that require barcodes for scanning and provide tracking information.” So the problem here seems to be, lack of evidence sufficient to convince the judge that there would be no tracking number unless certified or registered was also used. But must that service also be shown on the envelope itself? Is the letter carrier expected to know, just from the presence of the tracking number itself, that the item is certified or registered, and should be treated as such?
LikeLike
Mr Kamman, As you say, failure of proof is what defeats IRS’ motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. The certification from USPS’ paralegal should have stated, if such is the case, that no tracking number is issued except for Certified or Registered mail. What was on the envelope is immaterial, if USPS handled the mail as if it were certified, and its records establish same.
LikeLike