Nancy Rubel v. Commissioner Internal Revenue, 856 F.3d 301

Nancy Rubel and her then-husband filed joint returns for 2005–2008 and each year had unpaid tax liabilities; Rubel sought innocent-spouse relief under 26 U.S.C. § 6015 in 2015.
The IRS issued final denials: notices dated January 4, 2016 for tax years 2006–2008 and January 13, 2016 for 2005, each notifying Rubel she had 90 days to petition the Tax Court.
Rubel submitted more information; on March 3, 2016 the IRS replied it would still deny relief and erroneously stated an extended petition deadline (April 19, 2016) and warned that the letter did not extend the Tax Court filing period.
Rubel mailed a petition to the Tax Court on April 19, 2016; the IRS moved to dismiss as untimely under § 6015(e)(1)(A) (90-day filing deadline).
The Tax Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Rubel appealed arguing the March 3 letter restarted the 90-day period or that the IRS should be equitably estopped from invoking the statutory deadline.
The Third Circuit affirmed, holding the § 6015(e)(1)(A) 90-day limit is jurisdictional and therefore not subject to equitable tolling or estoppel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 6015(e)(1)(A)’s 90-day filing period is jurisdictional or a claims-processing deadline	Rubel: IRS March 3 letter created a new 90-day period and/or IRS should be equitably estopped from enforcing the original deadline	Government: The statutory 90-day limit is jurisdictional; late filing deprives Tax Court of power to hear the petition	The 90-day limit is jurisdictional; Tax Court lacked authority and dismissal affirmed

Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (courts should not treat statutory limits as jurisdictional absent clear congressional statement)
John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008) (claims-processing rules may be subject to waiver, forfeiture, and equitable tolling)
United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) (analyzing when statutory timing provisions are jurisdictional)
Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 817 (2013) (filing deadlines ordinarily are not jurisdictional absent textual indicators)
Brockamp v. United States, 519 U.S. 347 (1997) (tax deadlines serve finality interests and may be treated as jurisdictional)
Becton Dickinson & Co. v. Wolckenhauer, 215 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2000) (tax collection context supports strict deadlines for finality)
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010) (interpretation requires examining text, context, and historical treatment)
Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (distinguishing jurisdictional language from rules affecting parties' rights)