Blog

The Second Circuit’s recent decision in Buller et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 24-1557 (2d Cir. 2025), is a game-changer for taxpayers who miss the critical ninety-day deadline to petition the Tax Court after receiving an IRS notice of deficiency.

The Backstory

Mark Buller and Sarah Beatty received a notice of deficiency from the IRS regarding their 2018 income tax return. Under the Internal Revenue Code, they had ninety days to file a petition in Tax Court challenging the IRS’s findings. Unfortunately, their attorney filed the petition nine days late. As is routine, the Tax Court, following its longstanding precedents, found the lateness stripped it of jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

The Appeal and a Shift in the Law

Buller and Beatty didn’t give up. They appealed to the Second Circuit, arguing that the ninety-day deadline shouldn’t be a hard jurisdictional line but rather a procedural rule that, in some cases, could allow for flexibility if there’s a good reason, what’s known as “equitable tolling.”

In a ruling with far-reaching implications, the Second Circuit agreed. The court reasoned that recent Supreme Court decisions have drawn a sharp line between rules that truly limit a court’s power (“jurisdictional” rules) and those that just set up ordinary filing requirements (so-called “claim-processing rules”). The latter can sometimes be bent for equity’s sake.

The court specifically referenced the Supreme Court’s determination in Boechler P.C. v. Commissioner and other cases that deadlines like this one shouldn’t be treated as jurisdictional unless Congress clearly said so, which wasn’t the case here.

What This Means

The Second Circuit held that the ninety-day deadline in section 6213(a) is not jurisdictional, and is instead a claim-processing rule that can be subject to equitable tolling if circumstances justify it. This means the Tax Court can hear late petitions in rare cases where, for instance, the taxpayer was prevented from filing on time due to extraordinary circumstances, though taxpayers will still need to convince the court they meet these criteria.

The court sent Buller and Beatty’s case back to the Tax Court to decide whether their situation met the standard for equitable tolling.

Tax Practitioners And Affected Litigants Should Take
Note: While Deadlines Still Matter, For Some Late Filers,
The Courthouse Doors Are Not Forever Barred.

Why This Matters

Before this decision, missing the ninety-day filing deadline almost always spelled doom for a taxpayer’s Tax Court challenge, no matter the reason for the delay. Going forward, at least in the Second Circuit, taxpayers whose late filings result from circumstances beyond their control now have a shot at getting their day in court.

This aligns the Tax Court’s approach with modern Supreme Court doctrine and signals a more flexible, humanity-driven reading of procedural requirements, at least in cases where equity calls for a second look.

 Have an IRS Tax Problem?

     Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A. 

for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243)

Sources:

1.       https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/24-1557/24-1557-2025-08-14.html

2.      https://kpmg.com/us/en/taxnewsflash/news/2025/08/second-circuit-90-day-time-limit-equitable-tolling.html

Read more at: Tax Times blog

On July 11, 2025, the IRS released a memo targeting audits of large corporate taxpayers, marking a significant modernization in how the agency approaches complex corporate tax examinations. This update, addressed to employees in the IRS Large Business and International (LB&I) Division, aims to reduce administrative burdens, improve efficiency, and make dispute resolution more accessible for taxpayers.

Phasing Out the “Acknowledgment of Facts” Process

One of the headline changes is the planned elimination of the “acknowledgment of facts” (AOF) information request starting in 2026. The AOF was him him him him him him while the group of him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him to establish agreement on important facts between the IRS and taxpayers prior to issuing a notice of proposed adjustment. However, as the agency acknowledges in its new memo, participation from taxpayers in this process has been minimal. Many have found AOF to be cumbersome and of little value, arguing that the factual summaries provided are hard to evaluate without knowing how the IRS intends to apply the law. Bowing to this feedback, the IRS will phase out the AOF, hoping to foster a more streamlined and transparent audit process.

Expanding Accelerated Issue Resolution

The amended guidance also clarifies how the accelerated issue resolution (AIR) process applies, particularly in large corporate cases. The AIR procedure allows issues resolved during one audit cycle to be applied to other tax years for the same taxpayer. By making it clear that this process extends to substantial corporate cases, the IRS hopes to resolve recurring issues more efficiently and reduce redundant disputes in future audits.

Updates to Fast Track Settlement Procedures

Finally, the IRS has updated its fast track settlement program procedures. This program is designed to help taxpayers resolve disputes with the IRS quickly, ideally avoiding litigation. Under the new guidance, if IRS directors wish to deny a taxpayer’s request to participate in the fast track program, they must first notify the division’s deputy commissioner, adding an extra layer of oversight to ensure fairer access to alternative dispute resolution.

What This Means for Corporate Taxpayers

For large businesses, these changes are welcome news, promising shorter audits and improved opportunities to settle tax disputes amicably. Corporate taxpayers should consult with their advisors about how these changes might impact ongoing and future IRS examinations, as the agency seems committed to a more responsive and less adversarial audit environment.

The IRS's latest guidance demonstrates a willingness to adapt based on taxpayer feedback. By eliminating outdated processes and expanding successful programs, the agency is taking meaningful steps toward a more efficient tax system for large businesses.

 Have an IRS Tax Problem?

     Contact the Tax Lawyers at

for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243)

Read more at: Tax Times blog

 On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 we posted Issues Concerning Filing a Form 706NA? where we discussed that deceased nonresidents who were not American citizens are subject to U.S. estate taxation with respect to their U.S.-situated assets. We also discussed that Many foreigners owning property or assets in the United States are in violation of 706-NA filing requirements because of a number of misunderstandings. The basic rule is pretty clear-if a foreign decedent has assets in the United States with a gross value in excess of $60,000, the estate is supposed to file a tax return with the Internal Revenue Service. 

In the area of estate tax compliance, many of us have prepared Form 706’s, the estate tax return for US citizens and domiciliaries.  To be sure, this form is quite voluminous and can take a while to fill out but there are very few mysteries beyond schedule E; what percentage of an asset might be includable in an estate, the value of an annuity, what debts and expenses are deductible, the calculation of the marital deduction, and the generation-skipping tax computation. 

The next box asked for the decedent’s tax identification number. Virtually all American citizens born in the United States are assigned SS#’s at birth so there is no problem. In the case of a nonresident alien (N/A), there is no tax identification number so we enter “N/A-nonresident alien” inbox two. 

Have a US Estate Tax Problem?

Estate Tax Problems Require

an Experienced Estate Tax Attorney 

 

Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A.

 

 for a FREE Tax Consultation Contact US at

www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com

or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).

Robert S. Blumenfeld  - 

 Estate Tax Counsel

Mr. Blumenfeld concentrates his practice in the areas of International Tax and Estate Planning, Probate Law, and Representation of Resident and Non-Resident Aliens before the IRS.

Prior to joining Marini & Associates, P.A., he spent 32 years as the Senior Attorney with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Office of Deputy Commissioner, International.

While with the IRS, he examined approximately 2,000 Estate Tax Returns and litigated various international and tax issues associated with these returns.As a result of his experience, he has extensive knowledge of the issues associated with and the preparation of U.S. Estate Tax Returns for Resident and Non-Resident Aliens, Gift Tax Returns, Form 706QDT and Qualified Domestic Trusts.

  

Read more at: Tax Times blog

When taxpayers fall behind on their federal taxes, they often hope for alternatives to harsh collection tactics. But a recent Tax Court case involving an Iowa couple, Chad and Tina Mackland, is a strong reminder: the IRS will expect real cooperation before granting relief (Mackland, T.C. Memo. 2025-69).

The Macklands owed taxes for two years but hadn’t paid. When the IRS tried, unsuccessfully to collect, it issued them a notice proposing a levy on their assets. In response, the couple requested a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing and said they wanted an installment agreement. They explained that they were facing serious health and employment problems and hoped to use their home equity to pay off the debt, though a federal tax lien was complicating matters.

The IRS Appeals officer handling their case asked the Macklands for updated financial records and proof of hardship, basic steps in considering any payment plan. But the Macklands never supplied the documents the IRS needed, despite having nine months to do so.

With no new information, the Appeals officer went ahead and sustained the proposed levy. Unsatisfied, the Macklands took the matter to Tax Court, claiming the IRS official had been too harsh and asking the court to force the IRS to give them the payment plan they wanted.

The Tax Court disagreed with the Macklands. The court said the IRS officer had actually shown “extreme forbearance” and gave the couple ample time and opportunity to cooperate. Because the Macklands didn’t provide the documents or evidence the IRS requested, the court found that the IRS acted reasonably in moving forward with the collection action.

What does this mean for taxpayers?

If you’re seeking relief from the IRS, whether it’s an installment agreement, an offer in compromise, or another option, you have to meet them halfway. That means promptly providing all requested forms and financial documentation. 

Courts are unlikely to side with a taxpayer who fails to cooperate, and the IRS can move forward with levies or other collection actions if you do not play your part.

 Have an IRS Tax Problem?

     Contact the Tax Lawyers at

for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243)

Read more at: Tax Times blog