Background

• Shari Nauflett and her husband filed joint returns; IRS assessed unpaid taxes for 2002–04 and 2008 and denied Shari innocent-spouse relief by letters dated June 17, 2015.
• The denial letters stated a petition to the Tax Court had to be filed within 90 days of the letter.
• Nauflett alleges IRS employees (including a Taxpayer Advocate Service employee) told her she had until September 22, 2015 to file; she mailed her Tax Court petition on that date—one week after the statutory 90-day deadline.
• The IRS moved to dismiss the petition as untimely; the Tax Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, concluding the 90-day deadline in I.R.C. § 6015(e)(1)(A)(ii) is jurisdictional.
• Nauflett moved to vacate, arguing the deadline is a claim-processing rule subject to equitable tolling; the Tax Court denied the motion.
• Nauflett appealed; the Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the Tax Court, holding the 90-day deadline jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) (distinguishes jurisdictional rules from claim‑processing rules and explains consequences of jurisdictional time bars)
• Sebelius v. Auburn Reg’l Med. Ctr., 568 U.S. 145 (2013) (court requires clear statement from Congress to classify a provision as jurisdictional)
• Matuszak v. Commissioner, 862 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2017) (held § 6015(e)(1)(A) deadline is jurisdictional; relied on statutory text)
• Rubel v. Commissioner, 856 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2017) (same conclusion: § 6015(e)(1)(A) deadline jurisdictional despite taxpayer reliance on IRS mistake)
• Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (distinguishes limits on court power from parties’ rights and obligations)
• CSX Transp., Inc. v. Alabama Dep’t of Revenue, 562 U.S. 277 (2011) (statutory interpretation begins with text and context)