No, I do not mean an actual descendant of petitioner Henry G. Pugsley, whose appeal from a Section 6213(a) Tax Court toss of his petition was treated for a time as 11 Cir’s final word on Boechler, P. C. jurisdiction-vs-claim-processing dichotomy, until Allen. See my blogposts “Justified? – I’ll Say,” 12/5/25, and “11 Cir Has Spoken,” 2/11/26.

So as of this writing, the score in Boechler, P. C., v. Hallmark Rsch. Collective stands at three (Culp, Oquendo, and Buller) to one (Allen). 2 Cir, 3 Cir, and 6 Cir vs 11 Cir.

Unfortunately for Katharine Tarver and Pierre Tarver, Docket No. 6794-25, filed 4/15/26 (it’s That Day again), they’re Golsenized to 5 Cir.

Judge Courtney D. (“CD”) Jones claims 5 Cir also has spoken, and the Tarvers are auf’d.

“This case is presumptively appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See § 7482(b)(1)(A). The Fifth Circuit has also held that the deficiency deadline is jurisdictional. See Rochelle v. Commissioner, 293 F.3d 740, 741 (5th Cir. 2002); Keado v. United States, 853 F.2d 1209, 1212 (5th Cir. 1988). While the Second, Third, and Sixth Circuits have reached a different conclusion, contra Oquendo v. Commissioner, 148 F.4th 820 (6th Cir. 2025) (holding that the deficiency deadline is not jurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling); Buller v. Commissioner, 152 F.4th 84 (2d Cir. 2025) (same); Culp v. Commissioner, 75 F.4th 196 (3d Cir. 2023) (same), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 2685 (2024), we apply the precedent of the Fifth Circuit in this case, which has held that the deadline under section 6213(a) is jurisdictional, see Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742 (1970); see also Sanders, 161 T.C. at 119–20 (examining the Culp decision and continuing to treat the deficiency deadline as jurisdictional in cases appealable outside the Third Circuit). Accordingly, the deadline under section 6213(a) is jurisdictional and petitioners are not entitled to equitable tolling in the instant case.” Order, at p. 4.

Taishoff says both cases cited by Judge CD Jones as 5 Cir’s definitive conclusion were decided a mere 34 (count ’em, 34) years before Boechler, P. C., in Keado and a mere 20 (count ’em, 20) years before in the case of Rochelle. Keado is mostly concerned with duplicate SNDs and the Anti-Injunction Act in USDC; never considers equitable tolling. Rochelle was 143 days late with his petition, the Tarvers a couple hours (hi, Judge Holmes) late. And Rochelle got exactly one (count it, one) paragraph of an opinion, never mentioning claim processing vs. jurisdiction.

 Would these cases survive a post-Boechler, P. C. assault launched on behalf of the Tarvers? Comment below; I read all comments.