The case of Boechler P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (docket 18578-17L, U.S. Tax Court) is a landmark in tax procedure, clarifying whether taxpayers who miss strict IRS deadlines can ever get a second chance. The story involves a small North Dakota law firm, a missed deadline by just one day, and a unanimous Supreme Court decision that reshaped how courts view filing deadlines in tax disputes.
The Dispute: Penalties, Levies, and a Late Petition
Boechler P.C. ran into trouble when the IRS identified a discrepancy in its tax filings—specifically, a failure to timely file certain information returns for 2012. The IRS assessed an “intentional disregard” penalty and, when Boechler did not respond, moved to levy the firm’s property to collect the debt. Boechler exercised its right to a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing, but after the IRS upheld the levy, the firm had 30 days to petition the U.S. Tax Court for review. The deadline fell on a Sunday, so it rolled to Monday, August 28, 2017. Boechler’s petition, however, was postmarked August 29—one day late.
The Tax Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, agreeing with the IRS that the 30-day deadline was absolute and jurisdictional. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, leaving Boechler with no recourse—until the Supreme Court stepped in.
The Supreme Court’s Unanimous Decision
In April 2022, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the 30-day deadline under Internal Revenue Code § 6330(d)(1) is not jurisdictional. Writing for the Court, Justice Barrett explained that only Congress can make a deadline jurisdictional by saying so “clearly,” and the statute here did not do that. Instead, the deadline is a procedural rule—a “claim-processing” requirement—that can, in rare cases, be extended under the doctrine of equitable tolling.
This was a significant shift. Before Boechler, the Tax Court treated all its deadlines as jurisdictional, meaning late filings were automatically barred. Now, if a taxpayer can show they pursued their rights diligently and faced extraordinary circumstances beyond their control, a court may excuse a late petition.
Back to the Tax Court: The Equitable Tolling Test
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Tax Court to decide whether Boechler qualified for equitable tolling. At a trial in June 2025, the sole witness was Ms. Boechler, who testified that she miscalculated the deadline due to her many responsibilities. The firm argued that this should count as an “extraordinary circumstance.”
But the Tax Court applied a strict two-part test:
· Diligence: Did the taxpayer actively pursue their rights?
· Extraordinary Circumstances: Were there truly unusual events that prevented timely filing, despite the taxpayer’s diligence?
The court found Boechler failed both prongs. There was no evidence the firm followed up with its attorney or staff to ensure timely filing, nor any documentation of efforts to meet the deadline. Ms. Boechler could not recall who actually filed the petition or whether she gave specific instructions to do so. The court emphasized that being busy or making a mistake—while understandable—does not meet the high bar for equitable tolling. The petition remained untimely, and the IRS prevailed.
Why This Matters for Taxpayers and Practitioners
The Boechler decision is a double-edged sword for taxpayers. On one hand, it opens the door to relief for those who miss deadlines due to truly extraordinary circumstances, such as IRS misconduct or events entirely outside their control. On the other hand, the standards for equitable tolling remain exceptionally high. Courts will not excuse ordinary oversight, miscalculation, or even a heavy workload.
For tax professionals, the case is a reminder to document every step taken to meet deadlines and to advise clients that, while the law now allows for some flexibility, courts will scrutinize claims of diligence and extraordinary circumstances very closely.
The Bigger Picture
Boechler is part of a broader trend in which the Supreme Court has pushed back against treating procedural rules as jurisdictional unless Congress clearly says so. The decision likely applies to many other tax deadlines, not just CDP petitions. It reinforces the principle that, in most cases, missed deadlines are not automatically fatal—but relief is far from guaranteed.
Key Takeaways
· The 30-day deadline to petition the Tax Court after a CDP determination is not jurisdictional and can, in rare cases, be equitably tolled.
· To qualify for equitable tolling, a taxpayer must show both diligence in pursuing their rights and extraordinary circumstances beyond their control.
· Mere miscalculation or a busy schedule is not enough—the bar for equitable tolling remains very high.
· Tax professionals should document all efforts to meet deadlines and understand that courts will critically examine claims for equitable relief.
Boechler P.C. v. Commissioner is now a foundational case for understanding when tax deadlines are truly set in stone and when, just maybe, there’s room for a second chance.
or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243
Sources:
1. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/20-1472/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boechler_v._Commissioner
3. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/20-1472
4. https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/supreme-court-report-boechler-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-service-20-1472/
Read more at: Tax Times blog
