Tilden v. Commissioner
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 697
7th Cir.2017Background
- Robert Tilden received IRS notices of deficiency for tax years 2005, 2010, 2011, and 2012; the 90‑day Tax Court filing deadline expired April 21, 2015.
- Tilden’s counsel printed first‑class plus certified postage via Stamps.com and delivered the envelope to the Postal Service on April 21, 2015, but the Postal Service did not apply an official postmark; the Tax Court received the petition April 29, 2015.
- 26 U.S.C. §6213(a) requires timely petitions to the Tax Court; 26 U.S.C. §7502 and 26 C.F.R. §301.7502‑1 govern when mailing counts as filing and treat postmarks as dispositive for non‑USPS postmarks only as provided by regulation.
- The regulation’s relevant subsections: (c)(1)(iii)(B)(1) (private postmark date and actual receipt standard), (B)(2) (ordinary delivery comparison and proof of deposit/delay), and (B)(3) (if both private and USPS postmarks exist, USPS postmark controls).
- The Tax Court treated the Postal Service tracking entry (April 23) as equivalent to a postmark and dismissed Tilden’s petition as untimely; the Commissioner later conceded that Tilden had met the (B)(1) requirements and that the envelope was deposited April 21.
- The court of appeals reviewed whether §6213(a)’s 90‑day rule is jurisdictional and whether the Tax Court erred in applying (B)(3) or treating tracking data as a USPS postmark.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §6213(a)ʼs 90‑day filing deadline is jurisdictional | Tilden: historically treated as jurisdictional but parties may agree to facts establishing timeliness | Commissioner: initially contested timeliness, later conceded facts showing compliance with regulation (B)(1) | Court: §6213(a) is jurisdictional under Supreme Court precedents and Tax Court precedent (Guralnik), but parties may agree to dispositive facts bearing on jurisdiction unless collusion is suspected |
| Whether a private printed postage label and USPS tracking entry qualify as a USPS postmark under §301.7502‑1(c) | Tilden: Stamps.com label dated Apr 21 and delivery to USPS that day satisfy (c)(1)(iii)(B)(1) and make filing timely | IRS: argued Tax Court should apply (B)(2) or that tracking date controls (and Tax Court treated tracking date as postmark) | Court: (B)(3) applies only when both private and USPS postmarks exist; tracking data is not a USPS postmark and Tax Court erred to treat tracking entry as controlling |
| Whether the Tax Court must reject parties’ agreed facts on jurisdiction absent independent inquiry | Tilden: parties can stipulate facts determining jurisdiction | Commissioner: initially disputed timeliness but later conceded; Tax Court refused to accept agreement due to jurisdictional nature | Court: parties may agree to factual predicates for jurisdiction; Tax Court should have accepted the conceded facts here absent collusion |
| Proper remedy for erroneous dismissal | Tilden: vacate dismissal and reach merits | IRS: acquiesced to timeliness on appeal | Held: Reverse Tax Court, remand for merits determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) (presumption that procedural filing deadlines are not jurisdictional; Congress can make them jurisdictional)
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (statutory filing deadlines are presumptively subject to equitable tolling unless clearly jurisdictional)
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008) (some statutory time limits can be jurisdictional depending on statutory text and context)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (filing deadline for appeal is jurisdictional and cannot be waived)
- Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507 (1973) (parties may agree to facts that determine jurisdiction absent collusion)
- Railway Co. v. Ramsey, 89 U.S. 322 (1875) (courts may accept parties’ agreed facts relevant to jurisdiction)