A law firm that persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court to make a Tax Court filing deadline eligible for equitable tolling is not entitled to that relief for its own late petition, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed. (Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, 2026 WL 2293279, 8/10/2026)
No diligence, no extraordinary circumstance
In a per curiam opinion, the 8th Circuit reviewed the Tax Court’s equitable-tolling ruling de novo and its underlying factual findings for clear error. A litigant seeking equitable tolling must show both that it diligently pursued its rights and that an extraordinary circumstance stood in its way. The court held that Boechler, P.C. (BPC) failed on both counts.
On diligence, the court agreed with the Tax Court that “the record is silent as to whether anyone diligently pursued [BPC’s] rights.” Jeanette Boechler, the firm’s sole attorney, calculated the filing deadline herself and got it wrong, even though BPC had hired an outside attorney to file the petition.
She could remember no action taken to verify her calculation, and there was no evidence she consulted the outside attorney, her staff, the IRS, or anyone else to confirm the date. Due diligence does not demand maximum feasible effort, the court said, but it does require reasonable efforts that the record did not show here.
On the second element, BPC argued that the “combined effect” of Boechler’s responsibilities as a caretaker, single mother, and sole practitioner amounted to an extraordinary circumstance. At a remand hearing where Boechler was the only witness, she testified that the firm’s practice centered on plaintiff-side products-liability work and carried a heavy caseload, including about 25 active asbestos cases.
She also testified that she worked an average of 60 hours per week while caring for her elderly mother and helping her son move out of state for college. BPC employed three people during that period: Boechler, her sister, and a part-time assistant. Boechler prepared the firm’s quarterly and similar reports herself.
The 8th Circuit found no clear error in the Tax Court’s contrary findings that Boechler “control[led] her own workload,” had co-counsel on several pending cases, and had other family members who assisted with caregiving. A miscalculated deadline, standing alone, is not an extraordinary circumstance, the court said, describing it as the kind of garden-variety excusable neglect that does not warrant tolling.
Equitable tolling, the panel noted, is typically reserved for circumstances truly beyond a litigant’s control. The court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to show Boechler’s professional and personal circumstances were extraordinary “such that they ‘stood in [the] way'” of a timely petition.
Case history and SCOTUS remand
The appeal was possible only because of BPC’s earlier win at the Supreme Court. The dispute began in 2015, when the IRS notified the Fargo, North Dakota, firm of a discrepancy in its filings and later assessed an intentional-disregard penalty.
After a collection due process hearing, the IRS Office of Appeals sustained a levy in 2017. Under IRC § 6330(d)(1), BPC had 30 days to petition the Tax Court for review, and it mailed the petition one day late.
The Tax Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and in 2020 the 8th Circuit affirmed, holding that the 30-day deadline was jurisdictional and could not be extended. That decision aligned with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals but conflicted with the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had reached the opposite conclusion on similarly worded statutory language. The split prompted the Supreme Court to grant review in 2021.
In a unanimous decision by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court held in Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, 596 U.S. 199 (2022), that § 6330(d)(1)’s deadline is a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule, presumptively subject to equitable tolling. The government had argued that the provision’s parenthetical grant of jurisdiction tied the deadline to the Tax Court’s authority, but the Court found that Congress had not made the clear statement needed to treat the deadline as jurisdictional.
The Court reversed the 8th Circuit and remanded for a determination of whether BPC qualified for tolling — a question the Court did not resolve.
For more on limitations periods and equitable tolling, see Checkpoint’s Federal Tax Coordinator 2d ¶ U-1150.
Take your tax and accounting research to the next level with Checkpoint Edge and CoCounsel. Get instant access to AI-assisted research, expert-approved answers, and cutting-edge tools like Advisory Maps and State Charts. Try it today and transform the way you work! Subscribe now and discover a smarter way to find answers.
