Overview
On April 21, 2022, the Supreme Court in Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner1 unanimously held that the 30-day period to file a petition for review of an IRS Independent Office of Appeals’ decision is a non-jurisdictional deadline subject to equitable tolling.
Taxpayer Missed 30-Day Petition Filing Under § 6330 by One Day
In 2015, the IRS notified Boechler P.C. (“Boechler”), a North Dakota law firm, of a tax discrepancy. Boechler did not respond and the IRS later assessed an intentional disregard penalty and notified the firm of their intent to seize and sell their property to satisfy the penalty.
Boechler challenged the penalty in a hearing before the IRS’s Independent Office of Appeals and the penalty was sustained. Under section 6330(d)(1), Boechler then had 30 days to file a collection due process petition with the Tax Court, but it missed the deadline and filed the petition one day late.
As a result of the late filing, the IRS moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction due to the untimely motion. The Tax Court agreed and dismissed Boechler’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Tax Court’s decision, agreeing that the statute’s 30-day filing deadline is jurisdictional and cannot be equitably tolled.
Supreme Court Held 30-Day Deadline is Non-Jurisdictional
The Supreme Court held the 30-day time limit under section 6330(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional deadline, meaning that an untimely petition does not necessarily prevent the Tax Court from considering the taxpayer’s case and is also subject to equitable tolling. The IRS argued that the 30-day deadline was jurisdictional and the Tax Court does not have authority to consider late filed petitions.
The Supreme Court considered the difference between “jurisdictional requirements” and “procedural requirements” and found the 30-day filing requirement in section 6330(d)(1) to be non-jurisdictional. The Court noted that a procedural requirement is treated as a jurisdictional requirement only if Congress “clearly states that it is”.2 The Court considered the text of section 6330(d)(1) and stated that Congress did “not clearly mandate the jurisdictional reading.”3
The Court also noted equitable tolling is a background principle on which Congress drafts limitations periods and non-jurisdictional limitations are presumptively subject to equitable tolling.4 In this case, the Supreme Court noted the section 6330(d)(1) did not expressly prohibit equitable tolling.5
Analysis
As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Boechler, taxpayers who file untimely petitions may still be able to have their cases heard by the Tax Court. Although this decision is limited to collections due process petitions under section 6330(d)(1), this decision could open the door to additional challenges to filing deadlines within the Code.
Endnotes
1 Boechler, P.C. v. Comm’r, 569 U.S. ___, slip op. at 3 (2022).
2 Boechler, P.C. v. Comm’r, 569 U.S. ___, slip op. at 3 (2022).
3 Id at 4.
4 Id. at 8.
5 Id. at 9.
