31:
263:(IRS), sent a letter to Boechler, P.C. after noting a discrepancy with their prior submission of tax documents. Boechler, a North Dakota law firm, ignored the letter sent by the IRS, which led to them being imposed a 10% intentional disregard penalty. Similarly, Boechler did not pay the penalty. The IRS informed Boechler of their intent to levy, in which Boechler responded but did not establish reasonable grounds for relief.
270:, the only method to settle a tax dispute without tax litigation in court, sustained the levy and sent Boechler the notice of determination on July 28, 2017. The notice of determination was received by Boechler on July 31, 2017, but it stated that they had to submit a petition for a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing within 30 days (by August 28, 2017).
327:
interpretation could be better than the petitioners, but the bottom line is that it is "not clear" and therefore rejecting the
Commissioner's interpretation of "such matters" referring to the 30 day deadline as jurisdictional. She adds that such non-jurisdictional deadline would not help Boechler
284:
arguing that the 30-day time limit is not jurisdictional, should be covered by equitable tolling, and to calculate the time limit from the issuance of the levy instead of the date of receiving the levy is in violation of
307:
The court granted certiorari on
September 30, 2021, and heard oral arguments on January 12, 2022. On April 21, 2022, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the lower court judgements in a unanimous opinion by
551:
103:
Section 6330(d)(1)'s 30-day time limit to file a petition for review of a collection due process determination is a non-jurisdictional deadline subject to equitable tolling.
427:
556:
292:
In a 3-0 decision, the Eighth
Circuit affirmed the Tax Court's decision and reiterated that the Tax Court has no jurisdiction for untimely petitions for review.
485:
281:
79:
561:
277:
that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and requested the court to dismiss the case. The Tax Court agreed and dismissed the petition.
348:
546:
541:
273:
On August 29, Boechler submitted their petition for a CDP hearing, a day after the stated 30-day deadline. The IRS argued in the
566:
323:, represents the Tax Court having jurisdiction over tax litigation and is not a jurisdictional deadline. She contends that the
402:
213:
35:
324:
267:
63:
496:
260:
225:
428:"Justices add five new cases to their docket from "long conference," including Cruz campaign case"
274:
247:
decision by the court, they ruled that 30 day timeline is non-jurisdictional and is protected by
523:
489:
316:
229:
217:
74:
328:
unless it is able to be equitably tolled, calling equitable tolling "traditional feature of
315:
In her opinion, Justice
Barrett wrote how the phrase "such matters", held in parentheses in
505:
453:
8:
221:
198:
320:
309:
233:
170:
240:
over petitions to the tax court if the petition exceeded the 30 days time frame.
162:
146:
126:
134:
535:
329:
248:
349:"Court rules unanimously that tax deadline is subject to equitable tolling"
237:
158:
138:
118:
514:
377:
91:
286:
150:
224:(aka. Internal Revenue Code) and equitable tolling. It is regarding the
296:
244:
454:"Boechler v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 596 U.S. ___ (2022)"
30:
403:"Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, No. 19-2003 (8th Cir. 2020)"
552:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
282:
United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
378:"Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue"
54:Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
533:
557:United States statutory interpretation case law
562:United States taxation and revenue case law
299:to the Supreme Court of the United States.
280:Boechler appealed this decision to the
534:
295:Boechler filed a petition for writ of
236:and whether the tax court would have
18:2022 United States Supreme Court case
372:
370:
13:
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
578:
547:United States Supreme Court cases
492:___ (2022) is available from:
474:
367:
302:
29:
542:2022 in United States case law
446:
420:
395:
341:
1:
567:United States Tax Court cases
335:
268:Independent Office of Appeals
254:
212:, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a
524:Supreme Court (slip opinion)
187:Barrett, joined by unanimous
7:
214:United States Supreme Court
10:
583:
515:Oyez (oral argument audio)
310:Justice Amy Coney Barrett
261:Internal Revenue Services
196:
191:
183:
178:
112:
107:
102:
97:
87:
69:
59:
49:
42:
28:
23:
482:Boechler v. Commissioner
226:statutory interpretation
209:Boechler v. Commissioner
24:Boechler v. Commissioner
275:United States Tax Court
43:Argued January 12, 2022
330:American jurisprudence
45:Decided April 21, 2022
259:On June 5, 2015, the
434:. September 30, 2021
222:United States Code
123:Associate Justices
249:equitable tolling
205:
204:
171:Amy Coney Barrett
574:
528:
522:
519:
513:
510:
504:
501:
495:
469:
468:
466:
464:
450:
444:
443:
441:
439:
424:
418:
417:
415:
413:
399:
393:
392:
390:
388:
374:
365:
364:
362:
360:
355:. April 21, 2022
345:
216:case related to
108:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
20:
582:
581:
577:
576:
575:
573:
572:
571:
532:
531:
526:
520:
517:
511:
508:
502:
499:
493:
477:
472:
462:
460:
452:
451:
447:
437:
435:
426:
425:
421:
411:
409:
401:
400:
396:
386:
384:
376:
375:
368:
358:
356:
347:
346:
342:
338:
305:
257:
163:Brett Kavanaugh
161:
149:
147:Sonia Sotomayor
137:
127:Clarence Thomas
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
580:
570:
569:
564:
559:
554:
549:
544:
530:
529:
497:Google Scholar
476:
475:External links
473:
471:
470:
445:
419:
394:
366:
339:
337:
334:
325:Commissioner's
321:§ 6330(c)
317:26 U.S.C.
304:
301:
256:
253:
234:§ 6330(c)
230:26 U.S.C.
203:
202:
194:
193:
189:
188:
185:
181:
180:
176:
175:
174:
173:
135:Stephen Breyer
124:
121:
116:
110:
109:
105:
104:
100:
99:
95:
94:
89:
85:
84:
71:
67:
66:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
579:
568:
565:
563:
560:
558:
555:
553:
550:
548:
545:
543:
540:
539:
537:
525:
516:
507:
498:
491:
487:
483:
479:
478:
459:
455:
449:
433:
429:
423:
408:
404:
398:
383:
379:
373:
371:
354:
350:
344:
340:
333:
331:
326:
322:
318:
313:
311:
303:Supreme Court
300:
298:
293:
290:
288:
283:
278:
276:
271:
269:
264:
262:
252:
250:
246:
241:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
210:
200:
195:
190:
186:
182:
177:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
125:
122:
120:
117:
115:Chief Justice
114:
113:
111:
106:
101:
96:
93:
92:Oral argument
90:
86:
82:
81:
76:
72:
68:
65:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
481:
461:. Retrieved
457:
448:
436:. Retrieved
431:
422:
410:. Retrieved
406:
397:
385:. Retrieved
381:
357:. Retrieved
352:
343:
314:
306:
294:
291:
279:
272:
265:
258:
242:
238:jurisdiction
208:
207:
206:
192:Laws applied
179:Case opinion
166:
159:Neil Gorsuch
154:
142:
139:Samuel Alito
130:
119:John Roberts
78:
53:
15:
287:due process
151:Elena Kagan
536:Categories
458:Justia Law
432:SCOTUSblog
407:Justia Law
353:SCOTUSblog
336:References
297:certiorari
255:Background
60:Docket no.
245:unanimous
201:§ 6330(d)
70:Citations
480:Text of
463:July 15,
438:July 15,
412:July 15,
387:July 15,
359:July 15,
218:Title 26
184:Majority
88:Argument
220:of the
98:Holding
64:20-1472
527:
521:
518:
512:
509:
506:Justia
503:
500:
494:
319:
232:
199:U.S.C.
169:
167:·
165:
157:
155:·
153:
145:
143:·
141:
133:
131:·
129:
488:
243:In a
77:___ (
490:U.S.
465:2022
440:2022
414:2022
389:2022
382:Oyez
361:2022
266:The
80:more
75:U.S.
73:596
486:596
332:".
228:of
197:26
538::
484:,
456:.
430:.
405:.
380:.
369:^
351:.
312:.
289:.
251:.
467:.
442:.
416:.
391:.
363:.
83:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.