April 22, 2022

Supreme Court Rules Against IRS on US Tax Court Jurisdictional Issue

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Register for free to get unlimited access to all OnPractice content.
Register Now

In Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, the Supreme Court held the 30-day time limit to file a Tax Court petition for review of a collection due process determination is not a jurisdictional requirement. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and found that the Tax Court has the authority to consider a late-filed petition in a collection due process case.

Boechler, a North Dakota law firm, received a letter noting a discrepancy in its 2012 tax filings. When Boechler did not respond to the notice within 45 days, the IRS asserted an intentional disregard penalty and notified Boechler of its intent to levy on Boechler's property to satisfy the penalty and interest. In response to the notice, Boechler requested a collection due process hearing before the IRS's Independent Office of Appeals. The Independent Office of Appeals conducted the collection due process hearing and issued a notice of determination sustaining the proposed levy. A collection due process determination is reviewable in the United States Tax Court. Under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 6330(d)(1), Boechler had 30 days from the notice of determination to file a petition with the Tax Court. Boechler missed the deadline by mailing its petition one day late. The Tax Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed the Tax Court's decision.

The Supreme Court's Holding

The Supreme Court considered the text of IRC § 6330(d)(1) to determine whether Congress clearly stated that the 30-day deadline is jurisdictional. IRC § 6330(d)(1) states that a "person may, within 30 days of a determination under this section, petition the Tax Court for review of such determination (and the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction with respect to such matter)." The Supreme Court found that the text does not clearly mandate that the 30-day deadline is jurisdictional because there are multiple plausible interpretations. The phrase "such matter" can refer to: (1) a "petition [to] the Tax Court for review of such determination"; (2) a petition to the Tax Court that "arises from a determination under this section" and was filed "within 30 days" of that determination; (3) "such determination"; or (4) the list of "[m]atters" that may be considered during the collection due process hearing under IRC § 6330(c). The Supreme Court also looked at the broader statutory context and found that, unlike IRC §6330(d)(1), other tax provisions enacted around the same time clearly link their jurisdictional grants to a filing deadline.

The Supreme Court also considered whether the 30-day deadline can be equitably tolled, which allows the Tax Court discretion to extend the filing deadline. The court found that IRC § 6330(d)(1) does not expressly prohibit equitable tolling and, in the case at issue, there was nothing to rebut the presumption that a non-jurisdictional deadline is subject to equitable tolling.


Boechler may result in more taxpayers having their day in court. By allowing taxpayers to argue for equitable tolling in collection due process cases, taxpayers who missed the 30-day deadline will still be able to present facts to the Tax Court to demonstrate that the filing deadline should be tolled.

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Greenberg Traurig

California AG Announces Investigation of Mobile Apps' CCPA Compliance

By Gretchen A. Ramos Greenberg Traurig January 31 , 2023

On Jan. 27, 2023, the California Attorney General announced his office is investigating and sending letters to businesses in the retail, travel, and food industries with popular mobile apps that allegedly are not in compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) by failing to offer a consumer opt-out mechanism for sales, or honor rights requests submitted via authorized agents.

E2 Law Podcast: Episode 20 | Empire Environmental - Review of New York's Cap-and-Invest Program to Reduce Emissions and Achieve Climate Goals

By Steven C. Russo Greenberg Traurig January 27 , 2023

In this episode of Greenberg Traurig's E2 Podcast, attorneys Steven Russo, Zackary Knaub, and Jane McLaughlin discuss New York State’s cap-and-invest program to limit greenhouse gas emissions and share revenue with New Yorkers from disadvantaged communities to help cover utility bills, transportation costs, and decarbonization.

5 Trends to Watch: 2023 Data Privacy & Cybersecurity

By Gretchen A. Ramos Greenberg Traurig January 26 , 2023

While ransomware attacks have been on the rise since 2020, a recent trend has emerged where threat actors are bypassing ransomware malware and encryption tactics and going straight to data theft.

More From Tax

U.S. Supreme Court Dismisses as 'Improvidently Granted' Case on Scope of Attorney-Client Privilege

By Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris Jackson Lewis P.C. January 30 , 2023

In a per curiam opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has dismissed the writ of certiorari granted in In re: Grand Jury, No. 21-1397, writing only that it was “improvidently granted.”

This Week in 340B: January 17 - 23, 2023

By Emily Jane Cook McDermott Will & Emery January 26 , 2023

This weekly series provides brief summaries to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country.

IRS Releases Memorandum on Deducting Cryptocurrency Losses

By Andrew M. Granek McDermott Will & Emery January 26 , 2023

On January 13, 2023, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released a Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum (CCA 202302011) concluding that taxpayers cannot claim a deduction for cryptocurrency losses that have, absent a sale or other taxable disposition, substantially declined in value if such cryptocurrency continues to trade on at least one cryptocurrency exchange and has a value that is greater than zero.

Featured Stories