Page 110 - TaxAdviser_Jan_Apr23_Neat

Congress has limited the Tax Court’s deficiency jurisdiction to cases

in which a petition has been filed within the Sec. 6213 deadline.

for CDP hearings did not apply to the The Tax Court’s analysis: Apply- an exception to this rule, the dismissal
90-day deadline for filing a petition with ing the standard set out by the Supreme does not result in the deficiency deter-
the Tax Court in a deficiency case under Court, the court concluded that Sec. mination’s being sustained where the
Sec. 6213(a). Based on an analysis of 6213(a) clearly stated that the 90-day dismissal is for lack of jurisdiction. The
the text, context, and relevant histori- deadline for filing a deficiency case in court concluded, in light of Sec. 7459(d),
cal treatment of Sec. 6213(a), the court the statute was jurisdictional. that treating the deadline in Sec. 6213(a)
concluded that the statute clearly states The Tax Court first observed that as nonjurisdictional would be untenable
that the deadline is jurisdictional and, Sec. 6213(a) is the provision that confers for two reasons.
consequently, equitable tolling does not the Tax Court’s jurisdiction over defi- First, treating the dismissal of an
apply to it. ciency cases and that the 90-day dead- untimely petition as nonjurisdictional
Effect of the Boechler decision: line is not only in Sec. 6213(a) but is in would result in the taxpayer’s deficiency
Hallmark argued that the Supreme the same sentence as and is embedded in amount being the deficiency deter-
Court’s reasoning in Boechler com- the jurisdictional grant. Thus, the court mined in the notice of deficiency. This
pelled the conclusion that the 90-day found that the placement of the deadline outcome, the court stated, would be
deadline in Sec. 6213(a) for deficiency in the jurisdictional statute is an indica- improper because it would put Sec.
cases was not jurisdictional because tion that the deadline is jurisdictional. 6213(a) and Sec. 7459(d) at odds with
Sec. 6330(d)(1) closely resembles The Tax Court next noted that the each other and with the manifest pur-
Sec. 6213(a). The Tax Court, however, fourth sentence of Sec. 6213(a) indi- pose of the statutory regime. Second,
found that “Boechler emphatically teaches rectly indicates that deficiency jurisdic- applying the Sec. 7459(d) exception only
that these are different sections. Each tion depends on a timely petition by to dismissals other than those called for
must be analyzed in light of its own text, precluding the court from issuing an by Sec. 6213(a) would in the court’s view
context, and history.” Therefore, the Tax injunction or ordering a refund “unless contradict the actual history and intent
Court determined it must separately an- a timely petition for a redetermination of Sec. 7459(d).
alyze Sec. 6213(a) and could not simply of the deficiency has been filed and then The Tax Court then considered the
rely on the Supreme Court’s reasoning only in respect of the deficiency that is historical treatment of Sec. 6213(a)
with respect to whether the deadline the subject of such petition.” Having and its predecessors. The court re-
in Sec. 6330(d)(1) is jurisdictional to found that a statute must be construed viewed nearly a hundred years of
determine whether the deadline in as a whole, the court stated the fourth amendments to the statute, from the
Sec. 6213(a) is jurisdictional. sentence implied that the deadline in enactment of Section 274 of the Rev-
Standard for Tax Court’s analysis: the first sentence was jurisdictional in enue Act of 1924, P.L. 68-176, to the
The Tax Court first discussed the standard character. However, the court further amendments made to Sec. 6213(a) in
for determining whether a deadline is a stated that while this explicit “jurisdic- the Internal Revenue Service Restruc-
jurisdictional rule that cannot be tolled or tion” provision in the fourth sentence of turing and Reform Act of 1998, P.L.
waived, or if it is a claims-processing rule Sec. 6213(a) invoking the deadline in 105-206. Based on this review, it found
that is subject to equitable tolling. To be a the first sentence of the statute strength- that “Congress has left substantially
jurisdictional rule, according to the court, ened the argument that the deadline was unchanged the wording of its jurisdic-
“an analysis employing the principles of jurisdictional, it did not settle the issue. tional grant, and Congress’s additions
statutory construction must show that The Tax Court then considered to section 6213(a) have clarified that
the rule ‘clearly states’ it is jurisdictional.” the interplay between Sec. 7459(d) its deadline is jurisdictional.” In ad-
In performing this analysis, the Supreme and Sec. 6213(a) and determined that dition, the court found that over the
Court has held that a court should exam- it confirmed that the Sec. 6213(a) years, the deadline to file a deficiency
ine the text, context, and relevant historical deadline was jurisdictional. Under the case had been uniformly construed
treatment of the provision at issue (Reed general rule of Sec. 7459(d), a dismissal as jurisdictional not only by the Tax
Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 of a deficiency case sustains the IRS’s Court and its predecessors but also by
(2010)). deficiency determination. However, in the circuit courts of appeals.

www.thetaxadviser.com February 2023 55