Claims Processing and Jurisdictional Deadlines: Key Differences for Taxpayer Arguments and the Reviewing Court’s Jurisdiction

The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction that can exercise its authority only to the extent authorized by statute. For the first nearly 100 years of the Court’s existence, that meant that certain deadlines for initiating a Tax Court case were strictly construed such that filing a petition a minute late meant complete dismissal of the case.[1 ] However, a wave of litigation beginning in 2022 altered the Tax Court’s jurisdiction with regard to several statutory filing deadlines. For many deadlines, their status remains unclear. The 90-day petition filing deadline under section 6213(a), for example , is subject to a significant Circuit split that controls whether or not a taxpayer can take advantage of equitable tolling relief. This article will examine the evolution of the Code’s filing deadlines and will provide clarity on where and how to raise available equitable tolling defenses.

Statutes applicable to suits against the IRS are narrowly construed exceptions to the government’s enjoyment of sovereign immunity.[2] As such, strict compliance with the procedural requirements is generally required for the reviewing court to exercise jurisdiction.[3] However, courts generally presume that procedural requirements, like filing deadlines, are implemented to “promote the orderly progress of litigation,” but do not deprive a court of jurisdiction in the event those procedures are not strictly followed.[4]  Deadlines and procedures of this nature are commonly referred to as “claims-processing rules.” The claims-processing presumption applies unless Congress expressly states a procedural requirement is jurisdictional.[5]

The difference between these two classifications has significant consequences for litigants. If a jurisdictional label is attached to a filing deadline, a court must dismiss a case if a taxpayer fails to meet that deadline––even by a few seconds.[6] Blowing a claims-processing rule, however, allows greater flexibility. In that event, the reviewing court can consider whether the taxpayer should be granted relief from that filing deadline––a remedy known as equitable tolling.

The reexamination of Internal Revenue Code[7] deadlines began with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 596 U.S. 199 (2022), which considered the statutory text permitting a taxpayer to file a Tax Court petition following a CDP hearing. The statute provides that “[t]he 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).”[8] The Supreme Court concluded that the parenthetical referencing the Tax Court’s jurisdiction is not clearly linked to the 30-day filing deadline, despite the fact that “jurisdictional grant and filing deadline appear in the same provision, even the same sentence.”[9] Because the deadline is non-jurisdictional, it is presumptively subject to equitable tolling,[10] which “‘tolls,’ a statute of limitations when a litigant has pursued his rights diligently but some extraordinary circumstance prevents him from bringing a timely action,” enabling the reviewing court to hear the case on the merits notwithstanding an untimely filing.[11] Unsurprisingly, this case prompted a tide of challenges to statutory filing deadlines elsewhere in the Code.

The Tax Court was first called on to review the Supreme Court’s Boechler opinion and its applicability to section 6213(a)––the statute permitting court review for notices of deficiency. In Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126 (2022), the Tax Court stuck to its guns. Despite acknowledging that “filing deadlines…are quintessential claim-processing rules”[12] that are not ordinarily jurisdictional, the Court held late filed deficiency cases must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Hallmark was not unchallenged for long. Shortly following the Tax Court’s decision, a Circuit split arose. Contrary to the Tax Court, the Third Circuit in Culp v. Commissioner, 75 F.4th 196 (3d Cir. 2023) held that section 6213(a)’s filing deadline is a claims processing rule not subject to a jurisdictional limitations period, reasoning that if the section 6330(d)(1) deadline in Boechler “fell short of being jurisdictional,” then the section 6213(a) deadline must as well.[13] Thus, taxpayers whose deficiency petitions miss the timing mark still have a shot of having their case heard if they can establish circumstances that warrant equitable tolling.[14]

In August of this year, the Second and Sixth Circuits followed the Third Circuit’s lead and reversed the Tax Court’s dismissal of a taxpayer’s untimely petition holding that section 6213(a)’s filing deadline is “quite clearly”[15] a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule and that prior opinions describing the section 6213(a) deadline as jurisdictional were “vestiges of a bygone era.”[16] The Second Circuit began by acknowledging its long string of prior opinions (beginning in 1956) that described section 6213(a) as “jurisdictional in nature.”[17] However, after observing the Supreme Court’s opinion in Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) and its progeny––including Boechler––the question becomes whether those earlier cases which simply describe the filing deadline as jurisdictional, offering an explanation for that conclusion, remain good law. The Second Circuit concluded that they did not and reached its holding after considering section 6213(a) with “fresh eyes.”[18]

The Sixth Circuit took a similar view, noting that the Supreme Court instructs that a court’s prior “extraneous or passing references” to a deadline as jurisdictional should not be accorded controlling weight when confronting whether a statutory deadline is truly jurisdictional.[19] In its reasoning, the Sixth Circuit stated its explicit disagreement with the Seventh[20] and Ninth[21] Circuits who have held otherwise.[22]

Like in Culp, the Buller and Oquendo Courts remanded the case back to the Tax Court for consideration of the taxpayer’s equitable tolling claim. As detailed below, this did not go well for the taxpayer in Boechler.

Still, for now, Hallmark law governs in deficiency cases appealable to every circuit but the Second, Third, and Sixth.[23] While the Supreme Court has declined invitations by both the taxpayer and the government to consider section 6213(a)’s filing deadline, taxpayers in other circuits have continued to appeal dismissals of their deficiency actions, so we are likely to see the Supreme Court called on again for its review.[24]

The Tax Court has been receptive to holding other Code deadlines as nonjurisdictional. For example, filing deadlines under section 7436, applicable to petitions for redetermination of employment status, were recently held nonjurisdictional.[25] It is important to note that we have yet to see a Tax Court decision on partnership filing deadlines under section 6226 (applicable to TEFRA partnerships) or 6234 (BBA partnerships).[26] There are at least three cases currently before the Court on this issue.[27]

It’s important to note that while the jurisdictional question is ripe for litigation, equitable relief is granted sparingly, in truly exceptional circumstances, and does not extend to “garden variety claim[s] of excusable neglect.”[28] Even Boechler, the taxpayer that started it all by winning its battle on jurisdiction and the availability of equitable tolling, recently lost the war.[29] In a Bench Opinion issued this July, Judge Buch found that Boechler did not establish that it diligently pursued its rights (e.g., by following up with its attorney to ensure its petition was filed) and thus the filing deadline was not equitably tolled.[30] The Tax Court made a point to also note that Boechler’s attorney’s “oppressive workload” does not rise to the level of an extraordinary circumstance that could warrant relief.[31] In another case, Belagio Fine Jewelry, Inc. v. Commissioner, 164 T.C. No. 7 (2025), the Tax Court similarly held that attorney negligence does not excuse a taxpayer’s late filing.[32]

While we are still awaiting the final result of the Culp, Buller, or Oquendo remands, the Tax Court’s recent opinions have shown that they are observing the high bar required for equitable tolling, and that it is the taxpayer themselves who must make a showing of diligence in the face of extraordinary circumstances.

Authored by Lauren Heron White

Picture Credit: “United States Tax Court” by ajay_suresh is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Asbury Gardner, Tax Counsel, is an Atlanta law firm representing clients in complex civil and criminal tax litigation and federal, international, and state tax litigation and tax controversies. Asbury Gardner represents corporations, partnerships, business owners and high net worth individuals. The tax attorneys at Asbury Gardner are routinely recognized by Best Lawyers in America, Super Lawyers, Chambers USA, and the Legal 500 as tax experts.