I’ve been chronicling Tax Court’s fighting retreat from Boechler in deficiency cases, sticking to Sanders and Hallmark Rsch. Collective even as 2 Cir. crumbles to Buller, 3 Cir caves first with Culp, and 6 Cir collapses with Oquendo. Of course, the Supremes gave cert. den. to Culp, so anyone lifting their eyes to those hills will find that from thence cometh no salvation.

Now Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda, with the determination of the famed Australian militiamen defending the Kokoda Track, scheduling all those defeats yet stoutly refusing to retreat an inch, sends off Francene Elizabeth Stewart, Docket No. 15421-25, filed 2/13/25, for being a day late and more than a dollar short. Her petition was due by 6:00 EST, 11/10/25, but wasn’t efiled until 9:30 p.m. EST, 11/11/25.

“In her Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction… petitioner argues that “the delay in filing was caused by extraordinary circumstances during a federal government shutdown, which created confusion regarding filing obligations,’ and that the principles of the Court’s opinion in Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 230 (2016), should apply in this case. We disagree. As petitioner herself concedes in her Objection, the Clerk’s Office remained open for eFiling and paper filing during the federal government shutdown that occurred from October 1, 2025, through November 12, 2025. And the Court’s records show that our electronic filing and case management system, DAWSON (Docket Access Within a Secure Online Network)—which petitioner used to file the Petition in this case—was operational at all relevant times. Because the Clerk’s Office was accessible throughout the federal government shutdown, Guralnik has no application here.” Order, at p. 2.

For the story of Felix Guralnik, see my blogpost “Neither Equity Nor Designation,” 6/2/16. Note Guralnik was a pre-Boechler CDP NOD case, which Boechler would clearly have saved. 

Since Francene is Golsenized to 11 Cir, Ch J Scholar Pat points to Pugsley to support the jurisdictional bar in Section 6213(a), but Taishoff says see my blogpost “‘Justified’? – I’ll Say!” 12/5/25. The reference in Pugsley to Section 6213(a) was a throwaway, without any discussion of claims-processing-vs-jurisdiction, decided years before Boechler. While the last thing I ever want to do is stir up litigation, someone should take a trip to 11 Cir from a Tax Court deficiency jurisdictional shoot-down (with sympathetic facts, of course) and see what 11 Cir does with Pugsley now.

Anyway, fairness and equity are off the table. If you’re on the wrong side of a State line.

“Petitioner also argues that ‘equity and fairness warrant treating the petition as timely filed.’ To the extent this is an argument that the filing deadline set forth in section 6213(a) for deficiency cases is nonjurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling, we also disagree.” Order, at p. 2.