Matuszak v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 862 F.3d 192

Linda Matuszak and her husband filed joint returns for 2007–2008; the husband later pled guilty to fraud and agreed to file amended returns producing large deficiencies for those years.
Matuszak requested innocent‑spouse relief in March 2014; the IRS granted relief for 2008 but issued a final denial for 2007 on October 7, 2014.
Section 6015(e)(1)(A) gives a spouse 90 days from the IRS’s final determination to petition the Tax Court for review.
Matuszak mailed her Tax Court petition on January 6, 2015 — 91 days after the October 7 notice; she alleged IRS agents told her she had until January 7.
The Tax Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction as untimely and denied a motion to vacate.
The Second Circuit affirmed, holding the 90‑day filing rule in §6015(e)(1)(A) is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling or estoppel in the Tax Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 90‑day filing deadline in I.R.C. §6015(e)(1)(A) is jurisdictional	Matuszak: despite missing the 90‑day period, equitable considerations (and alleged IRS misinformation) should toll or excuse the deadline	IRS: the statutory 90‑day requirement is a clear jurisdictional condition; an untimely petition deprives the Tax Court of jurisdiction	Held: The 90‑day deadline is jurisdictional; the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction over an untimely petition, so dismissal affirmed

Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (clarifies consequences of labeling rules jurisdictional)
United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (failure to meet jurisdictional requirement deprives court of authority)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (Congress may make thresholds jurisdictional when it clearly states so)
Maier v. Comm'r, 360 F.3d 361 (2d Cir.) (interpreting §6015(e)(1) to limit Tax Court jurisdiction to electing spouse)
Tilden v. Comm'r, 846 F.3d 882 (7th Cir.) (construing similar Tax Court filing deadline as jurisdictional)