The 2022 case of the year is back at Tax Court and Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch gives it the T. S. Eliot treatment in an off-the-bencher Boechler, P. C., Docket No. 18578-17L filed 7/15/25.

Boechler, P. C., was a ND single-shingle plaintiffs’ personal injury (asbestos) firm. Boss Jeanette Boechler, Esq., had a “hectic” life during year at issue.

“Ms. Boechler was one of the caregivers for her mother who was in her late 90s. Ms. Boechler resided in the same residence as her mother and her sister, Lisa Boechler. She shared caregiving responsibilities with Lisa, as well as another sister who lived in Fargo, North Dakota. Ms. Boechler assisted her mother by making meals, taking her to doctor’s appointments, and performing other tasks around the house. Ms. Boechler was also a single mother to her son who graduated high school in [year at issue]. He was about to leave home for the first time to attend college.” Transcript, at p. 5.

The issue was late 941s which IRS claimed  and gave her a Section 6721 chop, which Jeanette disputed. Jeanette miscalculated when the petition from the CDP was due, but had a bunch PI cases percolating (hi, Judge Holmes) and was moving her son into college in NY. Jeanette’s petition, signed by her counsel, was two (count ’em, two) days late.

IRS’ response: “(W)hile Ms. Boechler’s personal circumstances may have been difficult, they were not uncommon, they were not beyond her control, and they do not rise to the level of extraordinary.” Transcript, at p. 8.

The Supremes said Congress didn’t prohibit equitable tolling of the 30-day cutoff, Section 6330 was “unusually protective of taxpayers” and such litigation is often initiated by pro se litigants.

The two-pronged test for equitable tolling is that petitioner diligently pursued their rights and that extraordinary circumstances beyond petitioner’s control prevented timely filing.

“Boechler did not allege or establish any facts that indicate it diligently pursued its rights. There is no indication that Boechler followed up with its attorney to ensure the attorney or supporting staff timely filed the petition. Cf. Holland, 560 U.S. at 653–54 (holding that a litigant diligently pursued his claim when he followed up multiple times with his attorney to ensure the petition was timely filed). Ms. Boechler testified that she could not recall if she filed the petition or if she supervised or otherwise provided direction to the person who filed the petition. And given that the petition was filed by counsel, the record is unusually silent as to what direction, if any, was provided by or to counsel to ensure timely filing of the petition. In short, the record is silent as to whether anyone diligently pursued Boechler’s rights. Failure to satisfy the first prong is sufficient for us to deny Boechler’s claim of equitable tolling. See Menominee, 577 U.S. at 256 (holding that failure to meet one element of the equitable tolling test is sufficient for the Court to deny equitable tolling).” Transcript, at pp. 11-12.

As for the second prong, merely being a busy attorney with family responsibilities (especially when these are shared) isn’t extraordinary (ain’t that the truth). Nor is getting the arithmetic wrong when dealing with SOL.

IRS wins.

I expect the trade press and the blogosphere will provide the editorial comments I now refrain from making.