Stephen C. Gilbert & Ronda D. Gilbert, Docket No. 18210-23, filed 1/2/26, hail from NJ, hence Golsenized to 3 Cir. So when they petition the SND they say they never got (and USPS tracking shows unclaimed) 177 (count ’em, 177) days late, the Culp equitable tolling gambit is playable.

And Judge Elizabeth A. (“Tex”) Copeland is willing to listen. The Gilberts claim IRS never sent a courtesy copy first class or sent a copy to Mr. G’s workplace as their Form 2848 indicated, either or both of which they would have gotten timely if IRS followed usual procedure after the certified-mailed SND was returned undeliverable. The AO with whom the Gilberts had continuously dealt with and extended the deadline for assessment continued correspondence with them, never telling them a SND had issued. And the IRS transcripts for years at issue have no notation that a SND issued. Finally, when the Gilberts got a notice that an out year’s refund was applied to the years at issue’s deficiencies, they petitioned within two weeks.

IRS wants summary J, claiming the Gilberts fail to clear the high equitable tolling bar

“There is a strong presumption in the law that a properly addressed letter will be delivered, or offered for delivery, to the addressee. The very strength of the presumption of regularity is rooted in the expectation that properly addressed U.S. mail failing to reach its intended recipient is a significant departure from the average. But ‘clear evidence to the contrary’ can rebut the presumption. In this case, the Gilberts have produced certified mail tracking records showing that USPS attempted to deliver the Notices of Deficiency… but ‘No Authorized Representative [was] Available’ making the delivery attempt unsuccessful. The Gilberts have also averred that they received no notice regarding the unsuccessful delivery. Further, both the Gilberts and AO L continued to correspond as if the case remained within Appeals sole jurisdiction. This information must be construed as true for purposes of summary judgment and, as such, suffices to establish a genuine dispute about whether the Gilberts received the Notices of Deficiency or were otherwise put on notice about their existence. Moreover, whether and how USPS makes its deliveries is generally beyond the Gilberts’ control. The Gilberts have therefore established a material dispute of fact as to whether extraordinary circumstances beyond their control intervened to prevent them from timely filing their Petition.

“Because the record suggests that the Gilberts may have diligently pursued their rights and may have been prevented from timely filing their Petition by extraordinary circumstances, we will deny the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” Order, at p. 5. (Citations and name omitted).

Did Culp lower the equitable tolling bar in 3 Cir?

And speaking of NJ and 3 Cir, how can there be a potentially groundbreaking NJ and 3 Cir case without you-know-whom? And of course The Great Chieftain of The Jersey Boys is among the trusty attorneys for the Gilberts. Another oak leaf cluster to his Taishoff “Good Job, First Class” awards.