Kaplan v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 552 F. App'x 77

Kaplan appeals a Tax Court dismissal of her challenge to a tax levy determination for lack of jurisdiction due to untimely filing.
Tax levy notice was issued by the IRS and sent by certified mail to Kaplan’s last known address; the 30-day period to file with the Tax Court governs the appeal.
Kaplan argues lack of actual receipt undermines validity of the notice and timeliness.
The Tax Court dismissed; on appeal, the Second Circuit reviews legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error.
The court reaffirmed that constructive notice via proper mailing triggers the 30-day appeal period, regardless of actual receipt.
The decision affirms the Tax Court’s jurisdictional ruling based on proper mailing and timely filing, not on actual notice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the 30-day appeal period triggered by proper mailing alone?	Kaplan	Kaplan's appeal untimely due to lack of actual receipt	Yes; proper mailing starts the period regardless of receipt
Does actual receipt affect tax notice validity?	Kaplan	Actual receipt not required for constructive notice	No; constructive notice suffices
Is the Tax Court's jurisdiction properly based on timely petition?	Kaplan	Jurisdiction arises from proper notice and timely petition	Yes; Tax Court's dismissal affirmed
Was the IRS mailing procedure compliant with statutory requirements?	Kaplan	IRS properly mailed to last known address	Yes; notice valid for purposes of triggering appeal period

Tadros v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 763 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1985) (constructive notice protects IRS from address-unknowns; no need for actual receipt)
Follum v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 128 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 1997) (timeliness begins upon proper mailing)
Weber v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 122 T.C. 258 (Tax Ct. 2004) (notice by certified mail triggers 30-day period)
Sunik v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 321 F.3d 335 (2d Cir. 2003) (standard of review for tax court conclusions of law)