Ask The California Employment Tax And Payroll Tax Attorney – Are Tax Court Filing Deadlines Set In Stone?

By Robert S. Schriebman

2024

Introduction

The US Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. This means that only certain cases can be brought before the Tax Court and these cases must be filed no later than the time limits set forth in several statutes. May these filing deadlines be extended by circumstances beyond the control of the taxpayer? These circumstances fall into categories such as death, serious illness, fire, casualty, natural disaster, or other disturbance. If one or more of these circumstances occur, does one have additional time to file a timely petition? These are known as “equitable” circumstances.

Generally speaking, court filing deadlines are what is known as “jurisdictional.” The term means the right and power of a court to adjudicate concerning the subject matter in a given case. Non-jurisdictional means that the court may not be able to calendar and hear a matter.

These are not easy questions to answer. The US Tax Court has several filing deadlines that are either 30 days or 90 days depending upon the type of matter.

In the recent US Supreme Court decision in Boechler P.C. v. Commissioner, 142 S. Ct. 1493 (2022), the Supreme Court held that the 30-day filing period to petition a collection due process (CDP) matter could be extended because the language in the statute reads as follows:

The person may, within 30 days of a determination under IRC § 6330, appeal such determination to the Tax Court (and the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction with respect to “such matter.”

The Supreme Court found that the words “such matter” created an ambiguity in the statute allowing a taxpayer more time to file. The Court ruled that the 30-day filing period was “non-jurisdictional.”

Paul Frutiger argued that another timeframe for filing a petition in the Tax Court, the 90-day deadline, was also non-jurisdictional and should be extended due to equitable grounds. This article will review the Frutiger case and Tax Courts ruling that the 90-day deadline was set in stone and not subject to late filing equitable arguments.

The Frutiger Case

Paul Andrew Frutiger v. Commissioner, US Tax Court, No 5, March 11, 2024

Paul was denied innocent spouse relief under IRC § 6015. This statute requires that a petition for Tax Court review be filed no later than 90 days from the date the IRS sends a certified letter to the taxpayer’s last known address. Unlike the 30-day filing deadline for filing a CDP petition, the innocent spouse filing deadline statute does not use the words “such matter.” Paul’s Petition was mailed to the Court 92 days after the IRS issued the certified letter. The Court received the Petition 96 days after the IRS issued the “Notice of Determination” to Paul. Paul argued that his Petition should be considered timely. He acknowledged that his Petition was untimely but argued that the Tax Court should hear his case on “equitable grounds” and allow him the additional 4 days grace period.

The key issue in Paul’s case was whether the Tax Court’s 90-day filing deadline was jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional. After considering many arguments, the Tax Court noted that the filing deadline stated in IRC § 6015(e)(1)(A) was worded differently than the corresponding CDP 30-day deadline. The Tax Court concluded that its 90-day filing deadlines are set in stone and are not open for any flexibility. It is also interesting to note that in the entire opinion, Paul never stated any equitable excuse or facts to convince the court that circumstances not under his control caused the filing deadline; not that it would have made any difference in the Tax Court’s ruling.

Conclusion

If a Court or any other governmental agency has a filing deadline you should assume that there are no acceptable reasons why you should have more time to file your matter. The books are full of cases where people waited past the 11th hour to file their petition, claim, or other matter. Plan ahead is the motto of the day.

***

Robert Schriebman has a successful practice in the Rolling Hills Estates area of Los Angeles County serving clients throughout California and the United States. He has successfully dedicated more than 50 years to helping individual taxpayers, business owners, CPAs, Enrolled Agents, and tax attorneys navigate the complicated tax systems of the federal and state governments. Mr. Schriebman is in private practice. He is not affiliated in any way with the EDD, and he is not employed by the EDD or any other agency of the State of California.

Robert Schriebman has written the only 2 books ever published dealing with how California Employment Development Department (EDD) operates. See “California Tax Collection Practice and Procedures” and “California Taxation Practice and Procedure,” both published by Commerce Clearing House.

Robert Schriebman has written over 20 books including the major manual used nationally by practitioners and the IRS, “IRS Tax Collection Procedures – A Manual for Practitioners” published by Commerce Clearing House.

Robert Schriebman has written over 20 books including the major manual used nationally by practitioners and the IRS, “IRS Tax Collection Procedures – A Manual for Practitioners” published by Commerce Clearing House in addition to the only 2 books ever published dealing with how California Employment Development Department (EDD) operates. See “California Tax Collection Practice and Procedures” and “California Taxation Practice and Procedure,” both published by Commerce Clearing House.

Web Site Article 792