Page 379 - TaxAdviser_2022
P. 379
TAX TRENDS
Analysis of and reflections on
recent cases and rulings.
Editor & Author: and sent a final notice of intent to levy
James A. Beavers, CPA, CGMA, Procedure & Administration in October 2016. Boechler requested
J.D., LL.M. and obtained a CDP hearing by the IRS
Late-filed petition does Independent Office of Appeals. The Of-
Author: not deprive Tax Court of fice of Appeals sustained the levy and on
Paul Bonner jurisdiction over case July 28, 2017, mailed a notice of deter-
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a mination that was delivered on July 31.
unanimous decision, held that Sec. 6330(d)(1) states that, after a
The Supreme Court Sec. 6330(d)(1)’s 30-day time limit CDP determination, a person “may,
within 30 days of a determination under
to file a petition with the Tax Court
reversed an Eighth for review of a Collection Due Process this section, petition the Tax Court for
Circuit decision, (CDP) determination is a nonjuris- review of such determination (and the
Tax Court shall have jurisdiction with
dictional deadline subject to equitable
holding that the tolling. Thus, the Tax Court might have respect to such matter).” Boechler’s
Sec. 6330(d)(1) jurisdiction over a taxpayer’s case where notice of determination from the CDP
filing deadline is the taxpayer filed a petition one day after hearing stated that the firm had 30 days
from the date of the determination
the expiration of the time limit.
not jurisdictional (until Aug. 28, 2017) to submit a peti-
and is subject to Background tion to the Tax Court. Boechler, how-
ever, submitted its petition on Aug. 29,
In 2015, the IRS notified a law firm,
equitable tolling; Boechler P.C., that its Forms W-2, 2017, one day after the 30-day deadline
the IRS Cincinnati Wage and Tax Statement, and Form W-3, had expired.
Transmittal of Wage and Tax Statements,
The Tax Court held in an
Centralized filed for 2012 with respect to its employ- unpublished opinion that it lacked
Innocent Spouse ees disagreed with the firm’s Forms 941, jurisdiction to hear the petition under
Operation’s opinion Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return, Sec. 6330(d)(1)’s 30-day filing deadline
because the deadline is jurisdictional
for the corresponding year. The IRS
that a taxpayer was informed Boechler that the firm must and therefore cannot be equitably tolled.
entitled to relief file corrected forms or explain the Boechler appealed the Tax Court’s
decision to the Eighth Circuit, which
discrepancy, or it would assess a
was not binding on Sec. 6721(e)(2)(A) penalty for failing to affirmed the Tax Court’s holding
the Office of Chief file a timely return, failing to include all (Boechler, P.C., 967 F.3d 760 (8th Cir. 2020)).
Counsel as a ‘final required information, or including in- Boechler appealed the case to the PHOTO BY ARCHEOPHOTO/ISTOCK
correct information. Boechler did not re-
Supreme Court, which agreed to hear
determination’ of spond, and the IRS assessed the penalty. the case.
In July 2016, the IRS notified
Both Boechler and the IRS agreed
liability. Boechler of its intent to levy on its prop- that the parenthetical at the end of
erty to collect the penalty plus interest Sec. 6330(d)(1) grants the Tax Court
48 July 2022 The Tax Adviser
