Whether Congress or the Supremes take the laboring oar is immaterial; it’s time to settle at the top level the question of equitable tolling in deficiency cases. Afsoun Naderi, Docket No. 19045-24, filed 3/28/25 is a month late with his petition, claiming his “late filing resulted from a non-willful clerical mistake and not deliberate noncompliance with the law.” Order, at p. 2.

Taishoff says it sounds a wee bit thin for equitable tolling, but that’s for the Court to decide, if Culp o’ercrows Hallmark Research Collective and Organic Cannabis Found. So far only Tax Court and 3 Cir have spoken, and the Supremes have ducked..

The Supremes having given us Boechler, P. C., the onlie begetter of this silt-stir, perhaps they should bring some discipline here.

Meantime, Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan once again tells the story.

“In support of his argument, petitioner cites the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, 596 U.S. 199 (2022), and that of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Culp v. Commissioner, 75 F.4th 196, 205 (3d Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S.Ct. 2685 (2024). Petitioner’s reliance on Boechler is misplaced. Boechler was a collection due process case involving our jurisdiction under I.R.C. section 6330(d)(1). However, this is a deficiency case, and our jurisdiction in such cases is governed by I.R.C. section 6213(a). See Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 165–66 (concluding that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Boechler does not apply to the 90–day period of section 6213(a)). Although the Third Circuit reached a different conclusion in Culp, 75 F.4th at 205 (holding that the deficiency deadline under section 6213(a) is nonjurisdictional), this case is presumably appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, see I.R.C. § 7482(b)(1). As noted above, the Ninth Circuit has held that the deficiency deadline is jurisdictional. See Organic Cannabis Found., LLC, 962 F.3d at 1092. Furthermore, in Sanders, 161 T.C. at 119, this Court thoroughly examined the Culp decision and held that we will continue treating the deficiency deadline as jurisdictional in cases appealable outside the Third Circuit. Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling in this case.” Order, at p. 2.

Absoun’s claims of selective enforcement and governmental retaliation “cannot be considered at this stage of this litigation.” Order, at p. 2. Presumably Absoun can try these in a refund suit.