IRS was unhappy with the nonjurisdictionality of the 90-day cutoff in BBA, which I more particularly bounded and described in my blogpost “Bring That Discipline,” 8/5/26. So they chose to send three (count ’em, three) attorneys to refry the beans in Kings Road Property, LLC, Kings Road Manager, LLC, Partnership Representative, 167 T. C. 14, filed 11/2/26.

The Kings Roadsters need ten (count ’em, ten) trusty attorneys, but Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch needs only five (count ’em five) pages to send off the Kings Roadsters.

“In recent cases, we have been called upon to bring some discipline to our jurisdictional rulings in partnership cases. In North Wall Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. 143, 168 (2025), we held that the TEFRA petition deadline was jurisdictional. We went one step further and held that, even if not jurisdictional, the TEFRA petition deadline was not subject to equitable tolling. Id. In contrast, in Big Apple Tompkins Realty LLC v. Commissioner, No. 19040-23, 167 T.C. (Aug. 5, 2026), we held that the BBA petition deadline was not jurisdictional. We left open the question of whether the BBA petition deadline could be subject to equitable tolling.

“That brings us to this case and the pending Motion. In Kings Road Property, LLC v. Commissioner, No. 10272-25, 167 T.C. (Sep. 21, 2026), we held that the BBA petition deadline can be subject to equitable tolling.” 167 T. C. 14, at p. 3.

For North Wall, see my blogpost “Boechler, Meet TEFRA,” 10/21/25; for Kings Road, see my blogpost “Brought That Discipline,” 9/21/26.

Bottom lione: IRS wants to advance new theories why the BBA cutoff was jurisdictional, but Judge Ingenuity Buch needs no ingenuity to squelch this rehash.

” In North Wall, we held that the TEFRA petition deadline was jurisdictional, and even if not jurisdictional, not subject to equitable tolling. In Big Apple, we held that the BBA petition deadline is not jurisdictional, and we reconciled our conclusion with North Wall. And in this case, we held that the BBA petition deadline is subject to equitable tolling, and we again reconciled our conclusion with North Wall. We have addressed and rejected the Commissioner’s arguments, including those belatedly raised. Accordingly, we will deny the Commissioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.” 167 T. C. 14, at p. 5.