Tax professionals understand that jurisdiction is a foundational element for any case brought before the United States Tax Court. As a court of limited jurisdiction, the Tax Court may only exercise authority granted by Congress. A recent memorandum opinion, Donna Davis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-72, offers a critical reminder of the stringent requirements for establishing jurisdiction, particularly concerning the validity of a Notice of Deficiency and the timely filing of a petition. This case underscores the importance of adherence to procedural rules, even in the face of sympathetic circumstances.

Factual Overview

The dispute in Donna Davis v. Commissioner centered on a Notice of Deficiency (Notice) issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to Donna Davis (Petitioner) for the 2018 tax year. The IRS mailed the Notice on November 1, 2021, to Petitioner’s Irvine Avenue address in Newport Beach, California. Critically, the last day to file a petition with the Tax Court for this Notice was January 31, 2022. However, the Court did not receive Petitioner’s Petition until June 26, 2024, bearing a postmark of June 21, 2024—872 days beyond the statutory deadline.

The factual record further detailed Petitioner’s address history and interactions with the IRS:

Petitioner had used her Irvine Avenue address on her 2019 tax return, filed around April 20, 2020, which the IRS processed on August 24, 2020. Correspondence related to proposed changes for her 2018 return also used this address.
In August 2021, Petitioner moved to Bishop, California.
Despite her move, Petitioner filed her 2020 return on October 15, 2021, still using the Irvine Avenue address, and the IRS processed this return on November 8, 2021.
The IRS produced a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Form 3877, Firm Mailing Book For Accountable Mail, signed by a USPS employee, proving the certified mailing of the Notice on November 1, 2021, to the Irvine Avenue address.
Petitioner eventually received the Notice on May 15, 2024, after submitting a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

Taxpayer’s Assertions and Request for Relief

The Petitioner contended that the IRS failed to properly send the Notice to her last known address, arguing she had informed the IRS of her address change before the Notice was mailed. She presented several arguments regarding her attempts to update her address:

USPS Change of Address: Petitioner stated she rented a USPS post office box in Bishop, California, on June 25, 2021, and was required to complete and file a change-of-address form with the Bishop Post Office.
Direct IRS Contact via Telephone: Petitioner affirmed that on multiple occasions in September and October 2021, she advised an IRS agent she had moved to Bishop, California. However, she later testified she "couldn’t get through the automated system" and resorted to writing a letter instead.
Written Notification to IRS: Petitioner claimed she drafted a letter to the IRS on or about September 21, 2021, explicitly stating, "Also, I just recently moved!! Please update my mailing address: Donna Davis, PO Box1646 [sic], Bishop, CA 93515". She provided a copy of this undated letter but offered no proof of mailing or confirmation of receipt by the IRS. She noted it "never occurred" to her to send it certified mail.
Motion to Take Judicial Notice: Petitioner also filed a motion requesting the Court to take judicial notice of IRS delays in processing paper mail during 2020 and 2021, particularly at the time she alleged notifying the IRS of her address change.

Court’s Legal Analysis

The Court initiated its discussion by reiterating its limited jurisdiction, which is contingent upon the issuance of a valid Notice of Deficiency and the timely filing of a petition. (See I.R.C. § 7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); I.R.C. §§ 6212 and 6213; Sanders v. Commissioner, 161 T.C. 112, 119–20 (2023); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130 & n.4, 138–39 (2022); Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983); Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3d 1082, 1092 (9th Cir. 2020)). The burden of affirmatively showing all facts giving rise to jurisdiction rests with the party invoking it. (See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270 (2000), aff’d, 22 F. App’x 837 (9th Cir. 2001); Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280 (1998); Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Wheeler’s Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960)).

Key legal principles applied by the Court included:

Validity of Notice of Deficiency: A Notice is generally deemed valid if it is mailed to the taxpayer’s last known address. (See I.R.C. § 6212(a) and (b); Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 807 (1987); Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 52 (1983)). Actual receipt of the Notice is immaterial if it was properly mailed to the last known address. (See Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 33 (1989); Bobbs v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-272, 2005 WL 3157919, at *2; Gyorgy v. Commissioner, 779 F.3d 466, 473 (7th Cir. 2015); Yusko, 89 T.C. at 810; King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 1988), aff’g 88 T.C. 1042 (1987); I.R.C. § 6212(b)(1); United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 1984)).
Proof of Proper Mailing: The Commissioner must prove proper mailing with "competent and persuasive evidence". (See Coleman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 82, 90–91 (1990)). A USPS Form 3877 is considered highly probative documentary evidence of the date and fact of mailing and can establish proper mailing on its own, raising a presumption of official regularity. (See Coleman, 94 T.C. at 90–91; Magazine v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 321, 324 (1987); Cataldo v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 522, 524 (1973), aff’d per curiam, 499 F.2d 550 (2d Cir. 1974); Rivas v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-56, at *13; Garrett v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2016-179, at *13–14; Zolla, 724 F.2d at 810).
Last Known Address Determination: A taxpayer’s last known address is generally the address on their most recently filed and properly processed Federal tax return, unless the IRS receives "clear and concise notification" of a different address. (See Treas. Reg. § 301.6212-2(a); King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d at 680). The taxpayer bears the burden of proving the Notice was not sent to the last known address. (See Yusko, 89 T.C. at 808). The inquiry focuses on the information the IRS possessed at the time of mailing. (See Gyorgy v. Commissioner, 779 F.3d at 477). If the Commissioner becomes aware of an address change, they must exercise reasonable care and diligence in ascertaining and mailing to the correct address. (See Frieling, 81 T.C. at 49). However, the Court requires documented evidence when a taxpayer claims to have submitted a change-of-address form; uncorroborated testimony is generally insufficient. (See Phillips v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2024-44, at *8; Gyorgy v. Commissioner, 779 F.3d at 477; Taylor v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2016-81).

Application of Law to the Facts

The Court systematically applied these principles to the facts of the case:

Proper Mailing of Notice: The Court found that the IRS successfully established proper mailing of the Notice via certified mail to the Irvine Avenue address using the USPS Form 3877.
Determination of Last Known Address:
- The IRS contended that Petitioner’s 2019 return, which listed the Irvine Avenue address and was processed before the Notice mailing, was the relevant "most recently filed and properly processed Federal tax return".
- Petitioner’s 2020 return, also listing the Irvine Avenue address, was filed shortly before the Notice mailing but processed after the Notice was sent.
- IRS Integrated Data Retrieval System transcript records confirmed that the address on the 2019 return matched the one used for the Notice, and no change to the Bishop address was reflected in IRS records until 2022.
Petitioner’s Notification Attempts:
- USPS Change of Address: The Court was not convinced Petitioner had filed a change-of-address form with the USPS, as she provided no documentation or corroborating testimony from a postal employee.
- Telephone Calls to IRS: The Court concluded that Petitioner did not successfully communicate with anyone at the IRS by telephone, accepting her own testimony that she "couldn’t get through the automated system".
- Written Letter to IRS: While the Court believed Petitioner drafted the letter, it found her copy undated and noted the absence of any proof of mailing or IRS receipt confirmation. A photo of a computer screen showing the letter’s last modified date was deemed insufficient evidence of mailing. Consequently, the Court found it unlikely the IRS received the letter before the Notice was mailed.
Timeliness of Petition: The Petition was filed on June 26, 2024, more than two years after the January 31, 2022, deadline, rendering it untimely.

Given the information available to the IRS at the time of mailing, the Court determined that the IRS properly used the Irvine Avenue address as the last known address. This conclusion was based on the strength of the USPS Form 3877, the lack of persuasive evidence regarding a timely address change notification, and the consistency of the IRS’s transcript records.

Conclusion

The Tax Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to redetermine the deficiency. The Petition was untimely filed because it was not submitted within the 90-day period following the proper mailing of the valid Notice of Deficiency to Petitioner’s last known address.

The Court denied Petitioner’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice regarding IRS mail delays, as the record did not show that she had sent any change-of-address correspondence to the IRS prior to the Notice’s mailing. While expressing sympathy for Petitioner’s situation, the Court emphasized that Congress has granted it no authority to provide a remedy under these circumstances, regardless of the taxpayer’s inadvertence or attempts. The Court highlighted that taxpayers who miss the deadline to petition the Tax Court may need to explore other avenues to contest their liability. (See Gyorgy v. Commissioner, 779 F.3d at 474).

This case serves as a stark reminder for tax professionals to emphasize to clients the critical importance of timely and clearly documented communication with the IRS regarding changes of address, ideally through certified mail or official IRS channels, and the strict adherence to statutory deadlines for filing petitions with the Tax Court. The absence of demonstrable proof of notification can have severe jurisdictional consequences.

Prepared with assistance from NotebookLM.