11 Cir, ignoring 2 Cir, 3 Cir, and 6 Cir, stood by Tax Court in denying equitable tolling while reaffirming Pugsley in Allen v. Com’r, No. 22-12537, 12/21/22. As I’ve said often before now, I don’t follow appellate courts; the trade press and blogosphere do that with more resources than a mancaver like me can ever muster. I didn’t blog Allen when then-Ch J Maurice B. (“Mighty Mo”) Foley tossed the petition with the usual one-page, day-late-dollar-short Order; there were dozens such then and since.

But to buttress Pugsley, apparently after an irreverent blogger questioned Tax Court’s reliance on a case decided years before Boechler, P. C., and wherein the Section 6213(a) jurisdictional barrier received less than a clause in a sentence as 11 Cir’s definitive word on jurisdiction-vs-claim-processing, Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda has 11 Cir’s post-Boechler, P.C., statement upon which to rely. 11 Cir even cites Pugsley approvingly.

For the whole story, see Amanda Lopez Docket No. 16760-25S, filed 3/2/26. Amanda says she really got the IRS run-around.

 “In particular, petitioner highlighted having been in communication with the IRS office in Austin, Texas, since at least July of 2025, responding to earlier notices from the agency and even submitting an amended return. Strongly emphasized were the unreasonable amounts of time taken by the IRS to address or to even acknowledge her submissions and the failure by contact persons to return messages left by phone. Attached to the motion were copies of letters sent by petitioner to the IRS, supporting her statements. Petitioner also reiterated her position regarding the inaccuracy of the proposed amounts.” Order, at p. 2.

Sorry, Amanda, you’re in FL, hence Golsenized to 11 Cir, so being six (count ’em, six) days late means a trip to USDC or USCFC (if you can afford to pay the tax and your lawyer).

So the score in CCA’s March Madness stands at three to one, three for Boechler, P. C. and one for Hallmark Rsch. Collective and its kin. 

And since the Supremes denied cert in Culp (3 Cir), there’ll be more.

A couple days ago (hi, Judge Holmes), namely, 2/27/26, I noted that the page count of Tax Court Orders on DAWSON’s Creek was out of order (see my blogpost “Draining the Swamp – Part Deux.” 2/27/26). I noted that I had informed the Genius Baristas.

Now comes their reply.

“Thank you for contacting DAWSON Support. The Court’s DAWSON tech team is aware of this issue and hopes to have it resolved soon.”

It’s five years and more since the rollout of DAWSON’s Creek. Comment is superfluous.