Boechler, P.C. v. CIR, 967 F.3d 760

IRS assessed a 10% intentional-disregard penalty against Boechler, P.C. after identifying discrepancies and imposed a notice of intent to levy when the penalty went unpaid.
Boechler timely requested a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing but failed to obtain relief; the Office of Appeals mailed a notice of determination on July 28, 2017 (delivered July 31).
The notice stated a taxpayer "may, within 30 days of a determination under this section, petition the Tax Court" — giving Boechler until August 28, 2017.
Boechler mailed its petition on August 29, 2017 — one day late; the Tax Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
On appeal Boechler argued the 30-day limit in 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1) is non-jurisdictional (so tolling could apply) and that measuring the period from issuance rather than receipt violates the Fifth Amendment; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Because the court held the deadline jurisdictional, equitable tolling was unavailable, and the due-process/equal-protection challenge failed under rational-basis review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §6330(d)(1)'s 30‑day filing deadline is jurisdictional	Boechler: Deadline is non‑jurisdictional; treated as a claim‑processing rule (so tolling possible)	IRS: Text links timely filing to Tax Court jurisdiction; deadline is a jurisdictional prerequisite	The deadline is jurisdictional — Congress clearly linked the 30‑day limit to the Tax Court's jurisdiction
Whether equitable tolling can save an untimely petition	Boechler: Even if late, equitable tolling should apply to excuse one‑day lateness	IRS: If jurisdictional, equitable tolling cannot create jurisdiction where Congress withheld it	No equitable tolling — a jurisdictional bar cannot be tolled; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed
Whether counting 30 days from date of determination (issuance) rather than receipt violates Fifth Amendment (due process/equal protection)	Boechler: Calculating from issuance can unfairly shorten the filing window for remote recipients and therefore is arbitrary	IRS: Uniform issuance date preserves enforcement efficiency and prevents manipulation (refusing delivery)	Measurement from issuance satisfies rational‑basis scrutiny; no due process or equal protection violation

Sebelius v. Auburn Reg. Med. Ctr., 568 U.S. 145 (2013) (filing deadlines ordinarily are claim‑processing rules)
Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011) (distinguishes jurisdictional rules from procedural rules)
Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709 (2016) (Congress must clearly state when a time limit is jurisdictional)
United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U.S. 402 (2015) (Congress must do something special to make a deadline jurisdictional)
Fort Bend Cty. v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843 (2019) (jurisdictional parenthetical can render adjoining text jurisdictional)
Myers v. Commissioner, 928 F.3d 1025 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (held a similarly worded parenthetical was not jurisdictional)
Duggan v. Commissioner, 879 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2018) (held §6330(d)(1) jurisdictional in a one‑day‑late filing case)
Hauptman v. C.I.R., 831 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2016) (discussed §6330 prerequisites and timely filing as prerequisite)
Gray v. Commissioner, 723 F.3d 790 (7th Cir. 2013) (timely filing is statutory prerequisite to Tax Court jurisdiction)
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012) (placement near jurisdictional provisions does not by itself make a rule jurisdictional)
Boyd v. Bowen, 797 F.2d 624 (8th Cir. 1986) (agency time‑start rules can satisfy rational‑basis for administrative efficiency)