Page 305 - JoFA_2022

Average gift increased
Holding: In a unanimous deci-
sion, the Supreme Court held Sec.
The average amount of gifts reported on gift tax returns increased by 82% between
6330(d)(1)’s 30-day time limit to
2017 and 2018, when a higher basic exclusion amount took effect.
file a petition for review of a CDP
determination is a nonjurisdictional
deadline subject to equitable tolling. $600,000
As the Court explained, not all
procedural requirements are jurisdic-
tional. Many are nonjurisdictional
$500,000
and simply instruct “parties [to] take
certain procedural steps at certain
specified times without conditioning
$400,000
a court’s authority to hear the case
on compliance with those steps” (cit-
ing Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S.
428, 435 (2011)). The distinction $300,000
between jurisdictional and nonjuris-
dictional procedural requirements is
important, the Court stated, because
$200,000
jurisdictional requirements cannot be
waived or forfeited, must be raised by
courts without prompting by the par-
ties, and do not allow for equitable $100,000
exceptions.
In Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546
U.S. 500, 515 (2006), the Court said
$0
it will treat a procedural requirement
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
as jurisdictional only if Congress
“clearly states” it should be treated
Source: IRS Tax Statistics, Gift Tax Returns.
as such. The Court also noted in
Auburn Regional, 568 U.S. 145
(2013), that the mere proximity of a
procedural requirement to a grant of Further, the Court noted, many tolling. Seeing nothing that rebutted
jurisdiction does not make the proce- interpretations of the language are the presumption with respect to Sec.
dural requirement jurisdictional. plausible, making it “difficult to 6330(d)(1), it held that equitable
Agreeing with Boechler’s reading make the case that the jurisdictional tolling applied with regard to the 30-
of the Code, the Court found there reading is clear,” and although the day time limit in Sec. 6330(d)(1).
was no clear indication in the statute 30-day time limit appears in the However, the Court did not
that the 30-day period was intended same sentence as the grant of determine whether equitable tolling
to be a condition of jurisdiction jurisdiction, the Court found no applied in Boechler’s case. Whether
because the word “matter” does “clear tie” between the two. Ac- it should be made available to
not appear before the phrase “such cordingly, the Court held that the Boechler should be determined on
matter.” Under the “last-antecedent filing deadline in Sec. 6330(d)(1) is remand, the Court stated.
rule,” which provides that the independent of the grant of jurisdic- ■ Boechler, P.C., No. 20-1472 (U.S.
syntactically closest antecedent to tion to the Tax Court. 4/21/22), rev’g 967 F.3d 760 (8th Cir.
a word or phrase is most likely the Further, with regard to equitable 2020)
intended one, “such matter” refers tolling, the Court, citing Irwin v.
to the phrase immediately before Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 — Laura Lee Mannino, CPA, J.D.,
the parenthetical in which it ap- U.S. 89, 95–96 (1990), stated non- LL.M., is an associate professor of
pears, which mentions the filing of a jurisdictional limitation periods are taxation, St. John’s University, Queens,
petition. presumptively subject to equitable N.Y.

journalofaccountancy.com July 2022 | 37