146 T.C. No. 4
Tax Ct.2016Background
- IRS assessed Bongam with section 6672 penalties totaling $772,282 (assessed April 9, 2009).
- On Oct. 1, 2013 the IRS mailed an NFTL Notice by certified mail to Bongam’s Bowie, Maryland address (IRS records' last known address); Bongam received that notice.
- Bongam timely requested a CDP hearing using a Washington, D.C. address (he did not file a change-of-address with the IRS).
- After the CDP hearing, the settlement officer issued a Notice of Determination dated April 30, 2014, mailed by certified mail to the Washington address; the mailing was returned as undeliverable.
- On Aug. 4, 2014 the IRS remailed the April 30 Notice (in the original envelope) by regular mail to Bongam’s Maryland address; Bongam received it and filed a Tax Court petition within 30 days of actual receipt and within 30 days of Aug. 4, 2014.
- The IRS moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the April 30 Notice was invalid because it was not mailed to the taxpayer’s last known address and therefore could not start the 30‑day appeal period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the April 30, 2014 Notice of Determination valid though mailed to an address that was not the IRS records' last known address? | Bongam argued the April 30 mailing was ineffective because it was sent to the wrong address and returned undeliverable. | IRS argued the original Notice was valid and started the 30‑day period despite being mailed to the Washington address. | Court held the April 30 mailing was invalid because it was not sent to the last known address and was returned undeliverable. |
| Could the Tax Court obtain jurisdiction based on the Aug. 4, 2014 remailing and actual receipt of the Notice by Bongam? | Bongam argued jurisdiction existed because he actually received the Notice after remailing and filed within 30 days. | IRS disputed that the remailing (regular mail) could validate the Notice for jurisdictional purposes. | Court held the remailing (and actual receipt without prejudicial delay) made the Notice valid for triggering the 30‑day filing period, so the Court has jurisdiction. |
| Is the date printed on the Notice controlling when it does not match the actual mailing date? | Bongam relied on actual receipt/remailing date to compute the 30‑day period. | IRS relied on the date printed on the Notice to assert the filing was late. | Court held the controlling date is the date the Notice was effectively mailed/received, not the earlier erroneous date printed on the Notice. |
| Does section 6330(d)(1) require certified mail to the taxpayer's last known address to create Tax Court jurisdiction? | Bongam argued section 6330(d) does not mandate certified mail; actual receipt without prejudicial delay suffices. | IRS contended notice requirements under related provisions and regulations support a strict address/mail method. | Court held section 6330(d)(1) does not impose the strict certified‑mail/last‑known‑address requirement; actual receipt without prejudicial delay can establish the start of the 30‑day period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weber v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 258 (Tax Ct.) (notice of determination sufficient if sent by certified/registered mail to last known address)
- McKay v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 1063 (Tax Ct.) (last‑known‑address rule is a statutory safe harbor; actual notice without prejudicial delay can suffice)
- Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65 (Tax Ct.) (notice valid if actually received without prejudicial delay)
- August v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1535 (Tax Ct.) (controlling date is date the notice was mailed, not necessarily the date printed)
- Terrell v. Commissioner, 625 F.3d 254 (5th Cir.) (appeal period did not begin when notice sent to incorrect address; began when remailed to correct address)
- Pugsley v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 691 (11th Cir.) (notice not sent to last known address is valid if taxpayer actually received notice in ample time to petition)
- Clodfelter v. Commissioner, 527 F.2d 754 (9th Cir.) (notice not sent to last known address is valid if mailing results in actual notice without prejudicial delay)