Those amongst us who foresaw a tsunamic silt-stir when the Supremes unleashed Boechler, P. C., upon us who never did them any harm will find our fears, like rumors of Mark Twain’s early death, greatly exaggerated.

Ch J-elect Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda raises high the bar for CDP equitable tolling in Virgil Joseph Aiello, T. C. Memo. 2025-46, filed 5/15/25. VJ had serious eye problems for five (count ’em, five) years before surgery fixed them three (count ’em, three) years before the CDP.

VJ didn’t provide papers or phone in for the CDP nor respond to the “last chance,” so Appeals issued the NOD, which VJ got two days later. VJ did send in the petition and the sixty Georges, but sent them to Appeals, which promptly returned them to VJ.

The “last chance” said to send petition to The Glasshouse in the Governmentally Efficient City.

VJ finally properly sends in petition and fee six months later, attaching a TAS letter suggesting OIC, which VJ says doesn’t solve his problem.

Neither does Judge Scholar Pat.

“To be entitled to equitable tolling, a taxpayer must establish that he pursued his rights diligently and that extraordinary circumstances outside his control prevented him from filing on time.” T. C. Memo. 2025-46, at p.4. VJ must bear this “heavy burden.”

He doesn’t.

“Mr. Aiello has not met his burden to show his entitlement to equitable tolling. As an initial matter, ‘[e]quitable tolling is a rare remedy, and the burden is on Mr. [Aiello] to show that he “diligently pursued his rights for the entire period he seeks tolled, not merely once he discover[ed] the underlying circumstances warranting tolling.”‘  Mr. Aiello argues that he diligently pursued his rights by sending his Tax Court petition to the Appeals officer. But the notice of determination explicitly told him that he needed to file that document with this Court.” T. C. Memo. 2025-46, at p. 4. (Citation omitted).

“Even assuming arguendo that sending his petition to the Appeals officer might represent an attempt to pursue his rights, Mr. Aiello has not shown that he continued to diligently pursue his rights in the six months between the Appeals officer’s return of his petition and filing fee check… and the filing of his petition in this Court…. In fact, Mr. Aiello fails to show that he took any action on this matter whatsoever in the nearly four months that followed the issuance of the June Taxpayer Advocate letter.” T. C. Memo. 2025-46, at p. 5.

The medical issue doesn’t help.

“Although Mr. Aiello faced significant medical problems beginning in 2014, these problems had resolved by 2019 (according to both Mr. Aiello and his doctor) and played no part in his tardy filing. And when given the opportunity during the evidentiary hearing to identify any other extraordinary circumstance that might explain the delay, Mr. Aiello stated: ‘Nothing stands out in my mind.’” T. C. Memo. 2025-46, at p. 5. (Footnote omitted, but read it; 1 Cir says obstruction by adversary might give rise to equitable tolling; how about misleading IRS advice? I know, statute and regs control, nothing else, but it might be worth a try with really good facts).