879 F.3d 1029
9th Cir.2018Background
- The IRS issued Notices of Determination to Philip Duggan on January 7, 2015, proposing collection for unpaid income taxes for multiple years and informing him he had 30 days (beginning the day after the notice) to petition the Tax Court under I.R.C. § 6330(d)(1).
- Duggan mistakenly treated the first day after the notice (Jan. 8) as day zero and mailed his Tax Court petition on February 7, 2015 (the 31st day).
- The IRS moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; the Tax Court granted the motion and denied Duggan’s reconsideration request.
- Duggan appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit, arguing the notice was ambiguous and his filing mistake was reasonable, and urging equitable tolling.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed jurisdictional dismissal de novo and analyzed whether § 6330(d)(1)’s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional (thus not subject to equitable tolling).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether I.R.C. § 6330(d)(1)’s 30-day filing deadline is jurisdictional | Duggan: statute/notice ambiguous; reasonable mistake and equitable tolling should apply | IRS: text conditions Tax Court jurisdiction on timely filing; deadline is jurisdictional and nonwaivable | The 30-day deadline is jurisdictional; Duggan’s late filing deprived the Tax Court of jurisdiction |
| Whether equitable tolling could save a late § 6330(d)(1) petition | Duggan: even if deadline applied, it should be equitably tolled for his reasonable reliance | IRS: jurisdictional time bars cannot be tolled because they divest court power | Court: cannot apply equitable tolling because the deadline is jurisdictional |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) (time limits are nonjurisdictional when they do not speak in jurisdictional terms and are structurally separate from the jurisdictional grant)
- Pocklington v. United States, 792 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2015) (statute conditioning a court’s power in express terms yields a jurisdictional bar)
- Matuszak v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 862 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2017) (90-day Tax Court filing deadline is jurisdictional where jurisdiction and time limit appear in same provision)
- Maier v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 360 F.3d 361 (2d Cir. 2004) (statutory text that specifies who may file petitions can function as a jurisdictional condition)
- Gorospe v. Commissioner, 451 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for Tax Court jurisdictional dismissals)
- Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, 568 U.S. 145 (2013) (Congress must clearly state when a deadline is jurisdictional)
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008) (stare decisis and congressional acquiescence can inform jurisdictional character)