Page 304 - JoFA_2022

TAX MATTERS

Boechler did not respond to the letter, liability. The IRS must provide notice
the IRS assessed a penalty of $19,250 of its intent, as well as an opportunity
under Sec. 6721(e) for intentional dis- for a pre-levy CDP hearing before an
regard of the reporting requirements. impartial officer in the IRS Indepen-
The penalty was assessed in September dent Office of Appeals. Following the
2015, and a notice of intent to levy hearing, the IRS must issue a notice of
was issued to Boechler in October determination. Sec. 6330(d)(1) provides
2016. Boechler made a timely request that a taxpayer “may, within 30 days
for a Collection Due Process (CDP) of a determination under this section,
hearing. petition the Tax Court for review
The hearing was held in May of such determination (and the Tax
2017, and on July 28, 2017, the IRS Court shall have jurisdiction with
mailed a notice of determination to respect to such matter).” Boechler and
Boechler that sustained its intent the IRS agreed that Sec. 6330(d)(1)
to levy. The notice indicated that grants jurisdiction to the Tax Court
Boechler had 30 days to petition to review a determination following
Late filing of petition the Tax Court for review of the a CDP hearing and that a petition
does not bar Tax Court determination. Boechler mailed the must be filed to trigger that jurisdic-
jurisdiction petition on Aug. 29, 2017, one day tion. They disagreed, however, as to
whether the timeliness of the petition
after the 30-day period had expired
The U.S. Supreme Court held that (30 days after the notice date was was a condition of the Tax Court’s
the Sec. 6330(d)(1) 30-day time Aug. 27, 2017, which was a Sunday, jurisdiction.
limit to file a petition with the so the statutory period ended on that Boechler argued that the phrase
Tax Court after a Collection Due Monday, Aug. 28). “such matter” in Sec. 6330(d)(1)
Process hearing determination is The Tax Court dismissed the case refers solely to the filing of a petition,
not a jurisdictional requirement. for lack of jurisdiction (Boechler P.C., meaning the Tax Court has jurisdic-
tion even if the petition is filed late.
No. 18578-17L (T.C. 2/15/19) (order
The Tax Court’s jurisdiction is of dismissal)), and Boechler appealed Further, since the court has jurisdiction,
conditioned on the petition’s to the Eighth Circuit, which had it can equitably toll the 30-day period
filing and not its timeliness. no clear precedent on this issue. The and review the IRS’s determination,
Ninth Circuit had previously held Boechler argued.
By Laura Lee Mannino, CPA, J.D.,
in Duggan, 879 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. The IRS, on the other hand,
LL.M.
2018), that the 30-day time limit argued that jurisdiction is condi-
The U.S. Supreme Court, reversing an in Sec. 6330(d)(1) is jurisdictional. tioned on the petition’s being filed
Eighth Circuit decision, found that the In Myers, 928 F.3d 1025 (D.C. Cir. within the 30-day period, and since
time limit to file a petition with the 2019), the D.C. Circuit held that Sec. Boechler’s petition was late, the Tax
Tax Court was not a condition of the 7623(b)(4), which allows whistleblow- Court did not have jurisdiction to
Tax Court’s jurisdiction but rather a ers to petition the Tax Court for review it. The IRS also argued that
nonjurisdictional rule relating to litiga- review of an award determination even if the Tax Court has jurisdic-
tion procedure for which equitable (and includes a parenthetical identi- tion, it does not have the authority
tolling is available. cal to the one in Sec. 6330(d)(1)), to apply the doctrine of equitable
Facts: The IRS issued a letter to is not jurisdictional. Citing Duggan, tolling, under which a deadline can
a law firm, Boechler P.C., on June 5, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the Tax be suspended or extended where a
2015, indicating a discrepancy between Court. Boechler appealed the case to party pursues its rights diligently
the amount of wages it reported on the Supreme Court, which agreed to but an extraordinary circumstance
Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, hear it. beyond the person’s control prevents IMAGES BY YURIY ALTUKHOV/ISTOCK
and the amount shown on Form Issues: Sec. 6330 provides taxpayers timely compliance (see Menominee
941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax with certain rights before the IRS can Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, 577 U.S.
Return, for its 2012 tax year. When seize property in satisfaction of a tax 250 (2016)).

36 | Journal of Accountancy July 2022