Aim Controls, LLC v. Cir, 672 F.3d 390

A.I.M. Controls, L.L.C., RESAM Holdings Trust, and Clifford William (trustee) sued the Commissioner after FPAA adjustments purportedly disregarded the partnership for tax purposes.
The FPAAs were issued August 27, 2008; penalties accrued.
Royce Mitchell sought readjustment in district court but was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to nonpayment and lacking standing as tax matters partner.
Petitioners filed a readjustment petition with the Tax Court on October 19, 2009; the Tax Court dismissed as untimely under TEFRA.
Issue presented: whether the Tax Court had jurisdiction when petitioners did not file within TEFRA’s express 150-day period; petitioners seek equitable tolling.
Court AFFIRMS dismissal, holding the TEFRA filing period is jurisdictional and petition filed 418 days after FPAA was untimely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether TEFRA §6226 time limits are jurisdictional	Petitioners argue tolling should save action	Government argues filing period is jurisdictional	Yes; §6226 time limits are jurisdictional

Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197 (2011) (limits when filing deadlines are jurisdictional per Henderson)
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (limits on jurisdiction must reflect clear congressional intent)
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct. 1237 (2010) (registration requirement not jurisdictional on its face)
Rich v. C.I.R., 250 F.2d 170 (5th Cir. 1957) (hard jurisdictional deadline interpretation for Tax Court)
Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794 (8th Cir. 2011) (Henderson principles applied to filing deadlines)
Columbia/St. David's Healthcare Sys. LP v. C.I.R., 264 F.3d 1140 (5th Cir. 2001) (notice partners and timing in TEFRA proceedings)
United States v. Mann, 435 Fed.Appx. 254 (4th Cir. 2011) (distinguishing Henderson context in other circuits)
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (earlier approach to filing deadlines as jurisdictional)