Tax Court in Brief | LaBorde v. Comm’r | CDP Verification, Last Known Address, and a Partial Remand

LaBorde v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-74 | August 20, 2026 | Landy, J. | Dkt. No. 12507-23L

Short Summary

Brian LaBorde was assessed trust fund recovery penalties under section 6672 arising from unpaid employment taxes of Standard Glass & Mirror Works, LLC, covering periods ending December 31, 2015, March 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017 through June 30, 2018. The IRS issued two notices of intent to levy and filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, producing three notices of determination after collection due process hearings.

Mr. LaBorde’s argument was narrow and, as it turned out, effective. He said the levy notices hadn’t been mailed to his last known address. The record made that plausible: he had filed returns showing three different New Orleans addresses — on Poydras, Poeyfarre, and Girod streets — within a compressed period, and the notices didn’t obviously match the sequence.

The Court sustained the lien determination and remanded the two levy determinations. Not because the Appeals officer got the address question wrong, but because her determinations never showed that she’d worked the question at all.

Key Issues

Whether the Appeals officer abused her discretion in sustaining a Notice of Federal Tax Lien filing and two notices of intent to levy, where the taxpayer contended the levy notices were not sent to his last known address and the notices of determination recited verification in conclusory terms.

Primary Holdings

The second determination, sustaining the Notice of Federal Tax Lien filing, was sustained in full.

The first and third determinations, sustaining the July 2022 and October 2022 levy notices, were sustained in part and remanded to the IRS Independent Office of Appeals for clarification of the verification required by section 6330(c)(1) — specifically, what documents and analysis supported the conclusion that each levy notice went to Mr. LaBorde’s last known address.

Key Points of Law

Section 6330(c)(1) provides that the Appeals officer shall at the hearing obtain verification from the Secretary that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met. That obligation runs whether or not the taxpayer raises it. Hoyle v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 197 (2008).

Section 6330(a)(2) and section 6331(d)(2) require that a levy notice be given in person, left at the dwelling or usual place of business, or sent by certified or registered mail to the taxpayer’s last known address. Under Treas. Reg. § 301.6212-2(a), the last known address is generally the address appearing on the taxpayer’s most recently filed and properly processed federal tax return, unless the taxpayer has given the Service clear and concise notification of a different address.

Because this case is appealable to the Fifth Circuit, the Court applied that court’s overlay: the Service must exercise reasonable diligence to determine the taxpayer’s last known address in light of all relevant circumstances. Williams v. Commissioner, 795 F. App’x 920, 924–25 (5th Cir. 2019); see also Terrell v. Commissioner, 625 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2010).

The doctrinal move worth noting is what the Court did with the gap. It didn’t decide the address question itself, and it didn’t excuse the omission. Where the administrative record presents a genuine factual question bearing on verification and the notice of determination resolves it with boilerplate, the Court can remand for a supplemental hearing rather than sustain or reverse outright. Lee v. Commissioner, 144 T.C. 40 (2015).

The facts that created the problem are worth spelling out. Mr. LaBorde’s 2020 Form 1040, filed February 4, 2022, listed the Poeyfarre address and was the most recent return before the July 21, 2022, levy notice — which went to Girod. For the October levy notice, the record left it unclear whether the 2019 or the 2021 Form 1040 had been properly processed first. Those are ordinary processing questions, and they’re exactly the kind an Appeals officer is supposed to run down before signing a determination.

Insight

LaBorde gives collection practitioners something they don’t get often: a live use for the verification requirement.

Most notices of determination handle section 6330(c)(1) with a paragraph of recited compliance. Most of the time that’s unobjectionable, because most of the time there’s nothing in the file to complicate it. The lesson here is that the recital stops working the moment the administrative file contains a fact that requires judgment — and a taxpayer who moved, changed a business address, or filed returns out of order has handed the officer exactly that kind of fact.

The practical sequence is to request the administrative file, build the return-filing and address chronology yourself, and put the discrepancy in front of Appeals during the hearing rather than saving it. Then read the determination to see whether it engages the chronology or restates the conclusion. If it restates the conclusion, LaBorde is the citation.

Notice also what Mr. LaBorde did not win. The lien determination stood, the penalties remain assessed, and a remand is a supplemental hearing rather than a discharge. The value is time, a better record, and occasionally a settlement posture that didn’t exist before. That’s a meaningful outcome in a case about trust fund recovery penalties, where the substantive defenses are famously thin once responsibility and willfulness are established. Our discussion of trust fund penalty liability covers that ground, and our guide to the LT11 and Letter 1058 walks through the notice that starts the CDP clock.

The full opinion is posted at CourtListener. More weekly briefs are collected in The Tax Court in Brief archive.

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Tax outcomes turn on specific facts, and the law changes. Consult qualified counsel about your own situation.