Isobel Berry Culp v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 75 F.4th 196

Isobel and David Culp reported $8,826.30 each as 2015 “Other income” from a settlement; IRS later concluded the payments were unreported and proposed adjustments.
In November 2017 the IRS sent a notice of deficiency for 2015 (advising a 90‑day window to petition the Tax Court); the Culps did not timely respond to earlier IRS letters.
In 2018 the IRS levied Social Security payments and the Culps’ 2018 refund to collect part of the assessed deficiency.
The Culps then filed a Tax Court petition seeking redetermination and refunds; the Tax Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the petition was filed after § 6213(a)’s 90‑day period.
On appeal, the Third Circuit found the IRS had properly mailed the notice (Form 3877 and presumption of mailing) and that the petition was therefore untimely, but addressed whether the 90‑day limit is jurisdictional and whether equitable tolling is available.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the notice mailed / did the 90‑day period start?	Culps: they never received the notice or it was never mailed	Commissioner: Form 3877 and presumption of official mailing; actual receipt not required	Notice was properly mailed; petition was untimely
Is § 6213(a)’s 90‑day deadline jurisdictional?	Culps: deadline is nonjurisdictional (claims‑processing rule)	Commissioner: untimely filing deprives Tax Court of jurisdiction	Not jurisdictional; no clear congressional statement makes it so
Is § 6213(a) subject to equitable tolling?	Culps: yes — nonjurisdictional time limits are presumptively tolled	Commissioner: tolling inappropriate or forfeited; administrability concerns	May be equitably tolled; presumption of tolling not rebutted here
Did the Culps forfeit/equitably waive the tolling argument by not raising it below?	Culps: they lacked reason to raise tolling in Tax Court because Commissioner did not assert the statute‑of‑limitations defense	Commissioner: argument of forfeiture	Court: no forfeiture; issue preserved and remanded to Tax Court for tolling determination

Boechler, P.C. v. Comm'r, 142 S. Ct. 1493 (2022) (presumption against treating filing deadlines as jurisdictional; background presumption for equitable tolling)
Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (distinguishing jurisdictional requirements from procedural rules)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (clear‑statement rule for jurisdictional characterization)
Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr., 568 U.S. 145 (2013) (use of textual tools; don’t rely on magic words alone)
United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U.S. 402 (2015) (procedural bars require a plain statement to be jurisdictional)
Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1 (2014) (definition and contours of equitable tolling)
United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347 (1997) (statutes drafted in unusually emphatic technical form weigh against implied equitable exceptions)
Boccuto v. Comm'r, 277 F.2d 549 (3d Cir. 1960) (actual receipt not required to start the statutory filing period)
Hoyle v. Comm'r, 136 T.C. 463 (2011) (compliance with USPS Form 3877 raises presumption of proper mailing)