United States v. Charles Weiss, 52 F.4th 546

Charles Weiss failed to pay federal income taxes for 1986–1991; the IRS assessed $299,202 in October 1994 and the ten‑year collection period began.
Bankruptcy filings tolled the limitations period multiple times; after tolling the collection statute would expire July 21, 2009 (as previously extended by tolling events noted in the record).
In Feb 2009 the IRS sent a Notice of Intent to Levy; Weiss timely requested a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing, which suspended the running of the limitations period under 26 U.S.C. § 6330(e)(1). At that time at least 129 days remained.
Weiss lost at the CDP hearing, lost in the Tax Court (147 T.C. 179 (2016)), and lost in the D.C. Circuit, which issued its mandate on August 23, 2018.
Weiss then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari (filed Oct 24, 2018); the Supreme Court denied certiorari on Dec 3, 2018. The government filed this collection action on Feb 5, 2019.
The central legal question was whether the § 6330(e)(1) tolling period covers (1) the time between the appellate mandate and a cert petition and (2) the time while a cert petition is pending, making the government’s suit timely.

Issue	Weiss's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether “appeals therein” in § 6330(e)(1) includes a Supreme Court certiorari petition	“Appeals therein” refers only to administrative or court appeals (not cert petitions); cert is distinct from an appeal	“Appeals therein” is broad and includes petitions seeking further review (including certiorari)	The phrase includes appeals and petitions seeking review of a CDP determination, including cert petitions
What “pending” means for tolling under § 6330(e)(1) — intermittent vs. continuous tolling	Tolling ends when a particular hearing or appeal is decided; gaps between proceedings are not tolled	“Pending” covers the continuous period in which further review remains possible; tolling continues until the time to seek further review expires	“Pending” means continuous from commencement until the point no further challenge can be filed; tolling includes the interval between mandate and cert filing and the pendency of the cert petition
Whether the government’s February 5, 2019 collection suit was timely	The government filed too late because tolling stopped earlier	Tolling continued through certiorari process so the suit was within the tolled limitations period	The action is timely because the 102 days associated with the cert petition tolled the statute and the suit was filed within the remaining tolled window

Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1979) (use ordinary meaning for undefined statutory terms)
Crane v. Commissioner, 331 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1947) (words in revenue statutes take ordinary meanings)
Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 (U.S. 1979) (canon against rendering statutory language superfluous)
Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2067 (U.S. 2018) (use of contemporaneous dictionaries to interpret undefined statutory terms)
Cranbury Brick Yard, LLC v. United States, 943 F.3d 701 (3d Cir. 2019) (de novo review of summary judgment in tax collection context)
United States v. Jabateh, 974 F.3d 281 (3d Cir. 2020) (referencing dictionary usage for statutory meaning)
Weiss v. Commissioner, 147 T.C. 179 (T.C. 2016) (Tax Court decision affirming CDP hearing determination)