Jurisdiction; Petition for a redetermination of a tax deficiency; IRC § 6213(a); Jurisdiction over “late filing” under § 7482(a); Patmon & Young Pro Corp v Commissioner; Whether the deficiency notice’s 90-day appeal deadline is “jurisdictional,” depriving the court of jurisdiction over a late filing; § 6213(a); Hamer v Neighborhood Hous Servs

On appeal from an order of the United States Tax Court, the court held for the first time in this circuit that the Internal Revenue Code’s 90-day deadline for appealing an income tax deficiency notice, § 6213(a), is not “jurisdictional,” and remanded the case to determine whether petitioner-Oquendo qualified for “equitable tolling” on the late filing of her challenge to a tax deficiency. The IRS sent Oquendo a notice of a tax deficiency. About five months later, she petitioned for a redetermination under IRC § 6213(a). A taxpayer has 90 days “after the notice” to file the petition, and during that period, the IRS cannot assess the deficiency. The IRS audited Oquendo’s 2022 return and determined that she was not entitled to claim status as “head of the household,” nor could she claim the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. The notice was dated 5/30/23 and informed her that she had until 8/28/23 to contest the findings. She filed on 11/1/23. Oquendo had three children who lived with her for more than six months a year. She also argued that she was entitled to equitable tolling regarding the filing deadline where the notice was sent to her former address. The Commissioner moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction based on the late filing, and the tax court complied. It ruled that its jurisdiction “‘depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition[,]’” and that it lacked authority to extend the deadline beyond 90 days. It concluded that the timely filing was jurisdictional, citing Patmon. However, the court considered the jurisdictional ruling for the first time under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hamer, which held that “claims-processing rules ‘are less stern’ than jurisdictional requirements and ‘may be waived or forfeited,’ unlike jurisdictional rules.” It noted that recent Supreme Court law has instructed “lower courts to be more judicious about labeling deadlines jurisdictional.” The court found its failure to mention jurisdiction or jurisdictional indicators “compels the conclusion that § 6213(a)’s petition-filing date is not a jurisdictional requirement.” Thus, equitable tolling became available as a remedy. Because the tax court never undertook this analysis, the court remanded the case for the “fact intensive” analysis.