< Volver

jueves, 18 de septiembre de 2025

US Tax Court Dismisses Petition Filed 872 Days Late: Critical Lessons on Jurisdictional Deadlines and Address Updates

US Courts   Tax  

Davis v. Commissioner Reinforces Strict Filing Requirements

The United States Tax Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction after the taxpayer filed her petition 872 days late. The decision underscores two fundamentals for taxpayers and advisers. First, deficiency jurisdiction in the Tax Court rests on a valid notice and a timely petition. Second, the Internal Revenue Service satisfies its obligation by mailing the notice to the taxpayer’s last known address. Actual receipt does not control once proper mailing is shown.

The Timeline That Led to Dismissal

The IRS mailed a Notice of Deficiency for tax year 2018 to Donna Davis at her Irvine Avenue address in Newport Beach, California on November 1, 2021. Under section 6213 a petition had to be filed within 90 days. The last day to file was January 31, 2022. The envelope containing Davis’s petition was postmarked June 21, 2024 and the Court received it on June 26, 2024. That filing was 872 days late. Davis later obtained a copy of the notice through a Freedom of Information Act request on May 15, 2024.

The timing issues arose because Davis moved from Newport Beach to Bishop, California in August 2021. She stated that she rented a post office box on June 25, 2021 and she claimed to have sent a letter on September 21, 2021 asking the IRS to update her address to PO Box 1646 in Bishop. The record did not contain persuasive proof that the IRS received clear and concise notice of the new address before the notice was mailed. The most recently filed and properly processed return before the notice was the 2019 return, which listed the Irvine address. The 2020 return, filed in October 2021 and processed on November 8, 2021, still showed the Irvine address.

The Jurisdictional Question

The Court considered whether it had authority to hear a petition filed far beyond the 90 day period and whether the notice was mailed to the last known address. The Commissioner produced a properly completed USPS Form 3877 that documented certified mailing to the Irvine address. That document created a presumption of official regularity. The burden then shifted to the taxpayer to show that the notice was not sent to the last known address.

The Court’s Analysis

The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. For deficiency cases, there must be a valid notice and a timely petition. The Court explained, citing Sanders, that it continues to treat the 90 day filing period as jurisdictional in cases appealable outside the Third Circuit. The regulation defining last known address looks to the address on the most recently filed and properly processed return unless the IRS has received clear and concise notice of a different address. Once the IRS proves proper mailing to that last known address, actual receipt is immaterial.

The Court found that Davis did not provide convincing documentation that the IRS had received an address change before November 1, 2021. The transcripts reflected that the IRS updated her address to Bishop in 2022. The Court expressed sympathy for the taxpayer’s circumstances but concluded that it lacked jurisdiction. In the Court’s words, it was sympathetic to the petitioner’s situation. However, based on the record, the Court lacked jurisdiction.

Practical Implications for Puerto Rico Practitioners

The Bottom Line

Davis v. Commissioner is a reminder that procedural rules can decide the outcome before any substantive tax issues are reached. Protecting a client’s right to a prepayment forum requires meticulous attention to addresses and deadlines. Good intentions are not enough without proof. A clear paper trail and careful calendaring are the best defense against losing Tax Court access.

Editorial notice

This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For specific cases, consult your legal counsel.