# U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A pp e a l s

For the Eig hth Circu it

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

No . 1 9 -2 0 03

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Bo ech l er, P.C.

Ap

pel l a n t

v

.

Co m m i s s io n er o f In tern al Rev en u e

Ap

p el l ee

------------------------------

Th e Fed eral Tax Cl i n i c o f t h e Leg al Serv i ces Cen t er o f Harv ard Law Sch o o l

Ami cu s o n Beh a l f o f Ap pel l an t (s )

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Ap p eal fro m

Th e Un i t ed St at es Tax Co urt

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _

Su b m i t t ed : J u ne 1 7 , 2 02 0

Fi l ed : J ul y 2 4 , 2 0 2 0

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _

Befo re KELLY, ERICKSON, an d STRAS, Ci rcu i t J u d g es

.

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _

ERICKSON, Ci rcu i t J u dg e.Bo ech l er, P.C. (“ Bo ech l er”) fi l ed a p et i t i o n fo r r e v i e w o f a n o t i ce o f

d et erm i n at i o n fro m t h e Co m m i s s i o n er o f In t ern al Rev en u e (“ IRS”). U n d er 2 6 U.S.C.

§ 6 33 0 (d )(1 ), a p art y h as 3 0 d ay s t o fi l e a p et i t i o n fo r rev i ew. Bo ech l er fi l ed o n e d ay

a f t e r t he fi l i ng dead l i n e h ad p as s ed

. Th e t ax co u rt 1 d i s m i s s ed th e p et i t i o n o n t h e

g ro u nd t h at i t l ack ed ju ri s d i ct i o n b ecau s e t h e p et it i on was u n t im el y

. W e h av e

ju ri s d i ct i o n u n d er 2 6 U.S.C. § 7 8 4 2 an d we affi rm

.

I . Ba ck g ro und

On J u n e 5

, 2 0 1 5

, t h e IRS s en t Bo ech l er a l et t er no t i n g a d i s crep an cy b et ween

p ri o r t ax d o cu m en t su b m i ss i o n s

. Th e IRS d i d n ot recei v e a res p o n se an d i m p o s ed a

1 0 % i n ten t io n al di s reg ard pen al t y

. Bo ech l er d id no t p ay t h e p en al t y

. T h e IRS m ai l ed

Bo e c h l er a n o t i ce o f i n t en t t o l ev y

. Bo ech l er t i m el y req u es t ed a Co l lect i o n Du e

Pro ces s (“ CDP”) h eari n g b u t fai l ed t o es t ab l i s h g ro u n ds fo r rel i ef o n t h e d i s crep an cy

o r t h e un pai d pen al t y

. On J u l y 2 8

, 2 0 1 7

, th e Offi ce of Ap p eal s m ai l ed a

d et erm i n at i o n s us t ai n i n g t h e l ev y t o Bo ech l er’ s l as t k n o wn ad d res s i n Farg o , No rt h

Dak ot a. T h e n o t i ce o f d et erm i n at io n

, d el iv ered on J u l y 31

, s t at ed th at Bo ech l er h ad

3 0 d ay s fro m t h e d at e o f d et erm i n at i o n

, i .e. u n ti l Au g u s t 2 8

, 2 0 1 7

, t o s u b m i t a p et i t i o n

fo r a CDP h eari n g

.

Bo ech l er m ai l ed a p et it i o n fo r a CDP h eari n g o n Au g u st 2 9

, 2 0 17

, o n e d ay

aft er th e 3 0 -d ay fi l in g d ead l i n e h ad ex p i red . Th e Un i t ed St at es Tax Co u rt recei v ed

Bo ech l er’ s u n ti m el y p et it io n an d t h e IRS m o v ed t o d i s m i s s fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n.

Bo ech l er o b

ject ed

, arg u in g t h at t h e 3 0 -d ay t i m e l i m i t i n 2 6 U.S.C. § 63 3 0 (d )(1 ) i s n ot

ju ri s d i ct i o n al

, t h e t i m e l i m i t s h ou l d b e eq u i tab l y t o ll ed

, an d cal cu l at i n g t h e t i m e l i m i t

1 Th e H o n o rab le Lewi s R. Carl u zzo

, Ch i ef Sp eci al Tri al J u d g e, Un i t ed St at es

Tax Co u rt

.

-2

-fro m i s s u an ce rat her t h an recei p t v i o l at es d u e p ro ces s

. Th e t ax co u rt d i s m i s s ed t h e

p et i t i o n fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i on . Bo ech l er ap p eal ed

.

I I . Di s cus s i on

W e rev i ew q ues t i o n s o f t h e t ax co u rt ’ s su b j ect m at t er ju ri s d ict i on d e n o vo

.

M art i n S. Azari an

, P.A. v. Co m m ’ r, 8 9 7 F.3 d 9 4 3

, 9 4 4 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 1 8 ). Th e t ax co u rt

i s an Art i cl e I co u rt an d as s u ch i t i s a co u rt wi t h “ st ri ct l y l i m i t ed ju ri s d i ct i o n.”

Bart m an v

. C.I.R., 4 4 6 F.3 d 7 8 5

, 7 8 7 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 06 ) (q u o ti n g Kel l ey v

. Co m m ’ r, 4 5

F.3 d 3 4 8

, 3 5 1 (9 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 5 )). Th e Su p rem e Co u rt h as “ rep eat ed l y h el d t h at fi l i n g

d e a d l i nes o rd i nari l y are n o t ju ri s d i ct i o n al ” b u t i n s t ead are u su al l y “ q u i n t es s en t i a l

cl ai m -p ro ces s i n g ru l es .” Seb el i u s v. Au bu rn Reg

. M ed

. Ct r., 56 8 U.S. 1 4 5

, 1 5 4

(2 0 1 3) (i n t ern al q u o t at i o n m ark s o m i tt ed ). Th at s ai d , a ru l e t h at “ g o v ern s a co urt ’ s

ad ju d i cat o ry cap aci t y ” i s ju ri sd i ct i o n al an d “ [o ] t h e r r u l es

, ev en i f i m p o rt an t o r

m an d at o ry

. . . s h o u l d n ot b e g i v en t h e j u ri s d i ct i o nal b ran d

. ” H e n d e r s o n ex rel

.

Hen ders o n v . Sh i n s ek i , 5 6 2 U.S. 4 2 8, 4 3 5 (2 0 1 1).

W e ad d res s fi rs t t h e t h res h o l d i s s u e o f wh et h er th e 3 0 -d ay t i m e l i m i t i n 2 6

U.S.C. § 6 33 0(d )(1 ) i s ju ri s d ict i o n al . Th e s t at u t e p ro v i d es :

T h e p e rs o n m ay

, w it hi n 3 0 d ay s o f a d et erm i n at i o n u n der t h i s s ect i o n

,

p et i t i o n t h e Tax Co u rt fo r rev i ew o f s u ch d et erm i n at i on (an d t h e T ax

Co u rt s h al l h av e ju ri s d i ct i o n wi t h res pect t o s u ch m at t er).

A few y ears ag o

, t h is co urt co n s i dered § 6 3 3 0 i n t h e co n tex t o f wh et h er t h e t ax

co u rt ’ s ju ri s d i ct i o n ov er o ri g i n al no t i ces o f det erm i n at io n ex t en d ed to s u p pl em en t al

n o t i ces . Hau p t m an v . C.I.R., 8 3 1 F.3 d 9 5 0

, 9 52

– 5 3 (8 t h Ci r. 20 1 6 ). In Hau p t m an

,

t h e p an el id en t i f

i e d t w o p rereq u i s i t es fo r j u ri s d i ct i o n o v er an in i t i al n o t i ce o f

d et erm i n at i o n : (1 ) t h e i s su an ce o f a n o t i ce o f d et erm i n at i o n fo l lo wi n g a CDP h eari n g,

-3

-an d (2 ) th e t ax p ay er’ s fi l i ng o f a p et i t i o n ch al l e n g i ng t h at det erm i n at io n wi t h i n 3 0

d ay s o f t h e i s s u a n c e d at e. Id

. at 9 5 3 (ci t i n g G i l lu m v

. Co m m ’ r, 6 7 6 F.3 d 6 3 3

, 6 4 7

(8 t h Ci r. 20 1 2 ); G ray v

. Co m m ’ r, 7 2 3 F.3 d 7 90

, 7 9 3 (7 th Ci r. 2 0 1 3 )); s ee T s ch i d a v.

C.I.R., 5 7 F. Ap p ’ x

. 7 1 5

, 71 5

– 1 6 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 3 ) (p er cu ri am ) (u n rep o rt ed ) (h o l d i n g

t h at t h e fai l u re t o co m

pl y wi t h § 6 3 3 0 ( d ) ( 1 ) d ep ri v ed t h e t ax co u rt of ju ri s d i ct i o n ).

Becau s e n ei t h er o f t h es e fact o rs w ere at is s u e i n Hau pt m an t h e co u rt reject ed t h e

arg u m en t t h at t h e t ax co u rt l ack ed j u ri s d i ct i o n t o rev i ew s u p p l em en t al n o t i ces

.

Hau pt m an , 8 3 1 F.3 d at 9 53

.

Al t h ou g h t h e IRS arg u es t h at w e are b o u n d b y Hau pt m an an d req u i red t o fi n d

§ 6 3 3 0 (d )(1 ) ju ri sd i ct i on al

, Hau p t m an s i m p l y d i d n o t ad d res s ju ri s d i c t i on al i s s u es

rai s ed b y an u n t i m el y fi li n g o f a p et i t i on

. In s tead , t h e grav am en o f t h e ho l di n g was

l i m i ted t o t h e q ues t i o n of w h et h er t h e t ax co u rt ’ s ju ri s d i ct i o n e x t e n d ed to

s u p p lem en t al n o t ices o f d et erm i n at i o n

. W h i l e p ers u as i v e, t h e j u ri s d i ct i o nal t es t l ai d

o u t i n H au p t m an was o b i t er d i ct a ad d res s in g an i s su e n o t b efo re t he co u r t

. S e e

San zo n e v . M ercy Heal t h , 9 5 4 F.3 d 1 03 1 , 1 0 3 9 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 2 0 ) (“ Di ct a i s a ju d i ci al

co m m en t m ad e wh i l e d el i v eri n g a ju di ci al o p i n i o n

, b u t o n e th at i s u nn eces s ary t o t h e

d eci s i o n i n t h e cas e an d t h erefo re n o t p reced en ti al .”) (cl ean ed u p )

. A s w e are n ot

b o u n d b y t h e d i ct a o f an o t h er p an el

, we m u s t d et erm i n e i f t h e fi l i n g d ead l i n e i n §

6 3 3 0 (d )(1 ) i s ju ri s d ict i o n al

. See i d

.

As a g en eral p ri n ci p le, a s t at u t o ry t im e l i m i t i s ju ri s d i ct i o n al w h e n C o n g res s

cl earl y st at es t h at i t i s. M u s acch i o v. Un it ed St at es

, 1 36 S. Ct

. 7 0 9

, 7 1 7 (2 0 1 6 ). M ere

p ro x im it y t o a j u ri s d i ct i o n al p ro v i s i o n i s i n su ffi ci en t. See Seb el i u s, 5 68 U.S. at

1 5 5

– 5 6 (s t at i n g t h at an o t h erwi s e n o n -ju ri s d i ct i o nal pro v i s i o n d o es n o t b eco m e

ju ri s d i ct i o n al “ s im

p l y b ecau s e i t i s p l aced i n a sect io n o f a s t at ut e t hat al s o co n t ai n s

ju ri s d i ct i o n al p ro v i s i o n s”). “ Co n g res s m u s t d o s o m et hi n g s p eci al

, b ey o n d set t i n g an

ex cep t i o n -free d ead l i n e, t o t ag a [t i m e l im it ] as ju ri s d i ct i o n al an d s o p ro h i b it a co u rt

fro m t o ll i n g i t .” Un i t ed St at es v. Kwai Fu n W o n g

, 5 7 5 U.S. 4 0 2

, 4 1 0 (2 0 1 5 ). Ev en

-4

-s o

, Co ng res s d o es n o t h av e t o “ in can t m ag i c wo rd s ” t o m ak e a d ead li n e j u ri s d i ct i o n al

i f th e “ t rad i t i o n al to ol s o f s t at u t o ry co ns t ru ct i o n

. . . p l ai n l y s h o w t h at Co n g res s

i m b u ed a p ro ced ural b ar wi th ju ri s d i ct i o n al co n s eq u en ces .” Id

. W e d et erm i n e

wh et h er Co n g res s m ad e th e n eces s ary cl ear s t at em en t by ex am ining “ the te xt, c ont ex t

,

an d rel ev an t h i s t o ri cal t reat m en t o f t h e p ro v i si o n at i s su e.” Mu s acch i o

, 1 36 S. Ct

. at

7 1 7 (i n t ern al q u o t at i o n m ark s o m i tt ed ).

Bo ech l er, rel y in g o n M y ers v

. Co m m i s s i o ner, as s ert s § 6 3 3 0 ( d )(1 ) i s n o n

ju ri s d i ct i o n al

. See 9 2 8 F.3 d 10 2 5 (D. C

. C i r

. 20 1 9). In M y ers

, t h e D.C. Ci rcu i t

ex am i n ed wh et h er an u n t i m el y fi li n g u n d er 2 6 U.S.C. § 7 6 2 3 (b )(4 ), w h i ch i n cl u d es

an i d en t ical l y wo rd ed p aren t het i cal as t he o ne fo u n d i n § 63 3 0

, d ep ri v ed th e t ax co u rt

o f ju ri s d i ct i o n

. 2 Id

. at 1 0 33

– 3 6

. Th e M y ers co u rt no t ed t h at § 76 2 3(b )(4 ) “ c o m e s

cl o s er t o s at is fy in g t h e cl ear s t at em en t req u i rem en t t h an an y t h e Su prem e Co u rt h as

h eret o f o r e h e l d to be n o n -ju ri s d i ct i o n al

. ” M y ers

, 9 2 8 F.3 d at 1 0 3 5. Ho wev er, t h e

co u rt u l t i m at el y h el d t hat t h e s t at u t e d i d n o t “ co n di t i o n [] t h e ju ri s d ict i o n al g ran t o n

t h e l im it at io n s peri o d, o r o t herwi s e l i n k [] t h o s e s ep arat e cl au s es .” Id

. Th e D.C.

Ci rcu i t d et erm i n e d t h at t h ere was n o cl ear st at em en t t h at t h e 3 0 -d ay l i m i t i n §

7 6 2 3 (b )(4 ) was ju ri s d i ct i on al ; i n s t ead

, it h el d t h at t he l i m i t w as m erel y i n cl o s e

p ro x im it y t o ju ri s d ict i o n al t erm s referri ng t o t h e g e n e r a l a p peal

, no t a t im el y -fi l ed

ap p eal . Id . at 1 0 3 5

.

Th e IRS di rect s o u r at t en t i o n t o t h e Ni n t h Ci rcu it ’ s d eci s i o n i n Du g g an v.

Co m m i s s i o n er, 8 7 9 F.3 d 1 0 2 9 (9 t h Ci r. 20 1 8 ), wh i ch h el d th at § 6 3 30 (d )(1 ) i s

ju ri s d i ct i o n al

. In t h at cas e, t h e p l ai n t i ff al s o fi l ed h is pet i t i o n fo r rev iew o n e d ay aft er

t h e f i l i n g d e a dl in e. Id

. at 1 0 3 1

. Th e Ni n t h Ci rcu i t d et erm i n ed t h at § 6 3 3 0 (d )(1 )

2 Sect i o n 7 6 2 3 (b )(4 ) p ro vi d es : An y d et erm i nat i o n reg ard i n g a n a ward u n d er

p arag rap h (1 ), (2 ), o r (3 ) m ay

, wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s o f s u ch d et erm i n at i o n

, b e ap p eal ed to

t h e Tax Co u rt (an d t h e Tax Co u rt s h al l h av e ju ri s d i ct i o n wi t h res pect t o s u ch m at t er).

-5

-“ ex p res s l y co n t em p l at es t he Tax Co u rt ’ s ju ri s d i ct i on ” an d “ m ak es t im el y fi l i n g o f t h e

p et i t i o n a co n d i t io n o f t h e T ax Co u rt ’ s j u ri s d i ct i o n .” Id

. at 1 0 3 4

. Th e co urt ex p l ai n ed

t h at i t was s i g n i fi can t t h at “ t h e fi l i n g d ead l i n e i s g i v en i n th e s am e b reat h as t h e g ran t

o f ju ri s d i ct i o n .” Id

. In reach i n g t h e co n cl us i o n th at § 6 3 3 0 (d )(1 ) i s ju ri s d ict i o n al

, t h e

Ni n th Ci rcu i t n o ted “ t h e t es t i s wh et h er Co n g res s m ad e a cl ear st at em en t

, n o t wh et h er

i t m ad e t h e cl eares t s tat em en t p o s s i b l e.” Id

.

W e fi n d t h e Ni n t h Ci rcu i t ’s a n a l y si s pers u as i v e. T h e s t at u to ry t ex t o f §

6 3 3 0 (d )(1 ) i s a rare i ns t an ce wh ere Co n g res s cl earl y ex p res s ed i t s i n t en t to m ak e t h e

fi li n g d ead li n e ju ri s d i ct io nal

. Th e p ro v i s io n s t at es : Th e p ers o n m ay

, w i t hi n 3 0 day s

o f a d et erm i n at i o n u nd er t h is s ect i o n

, p et i t i on th e T ax Co u r t f o r r e v i e w o f s u ch

d et erm i n at i o n (an d th e T ax Co u rt s h al l h av e ju ri s d i ct io n wi t h res p ect t o s u ch m at t er).

2 6 U.S.C. § 6 3 3 0 (d )(1 ). Th e p aren t h et i cal “ (an d t h e T ax Co urt sh al l h av e j u ri s d i ct i o n

wi t h res pect t o s u ch m at t er)” i s cl earl y ju ri s di ct i o n al an d ren d ers t h e rem ai n d er o f t h e

s en t en ce ju ri s d i ct io n al

. See Fo rt Ben d Ct y

. v

. D av i s, 1 39 S. Ct

. 1 8 43

, 1 8 4 9 (2 0 1 9 ).

A p l ai n read i n g d em o n s trat es t hat t he p h ras e “ s u ch ma t t er ” refers t o a p et i t i o n

t o t he t ax co u rt t h at : (1 ) ari s es fro m “ a d et erm i nat i on u n der t h i s s ect i o n” an d (2 ) was

fi led “ w i t h i n 3 0 day s ” o f t h at d et erm i n at i o n

. See M y ers

, 9 2 8 F.3 d at 1 0 3 9

( H e n d ers o n

, J

. , d i ss en t i n g ) (reach i n g t he s am e co ncl u s i o n wh en an al y zi n g t h e

i d en t i cal l y wo rd ed p aren th et i cal i n § 7 6 2 3 (b )(4 )); s ee a l s o 26 U.S.C. § 6 33 0 (e)(1 )

(“ Th e Tax Co urt s h al l hav e n o ju ri s di ct i on u nd er th i s p arag rap h t o en jo i n an y act i o n

o r p ro cee d i n g u n l es s a ti m el y ap p eal h as been fi l ed un d er s ub s ect i o n (d )(1 ).

. .”).

Un l ik e o t h er s t at u t o ry p ro v i s i o n s t h at hav e b een fo u n d t o b e n o n -ju ri s di ct i o n al b y t h e

Su p rem e Co u rt

, § 6 3 3 0 (d )(1 ) s p eak s “ i n ju ri s d i ct i o n al t erm s .” M u s acch io

, 1 3 6 S. Ct

.

at 7 1 7 (f i n d i n g 1 8 U .S.C. § 3 2 8 2 (a) n on -ju ri s d ict i o n al ). T he u s e o f “ su ch ma t t er ”

“ p l ai n l y s h o w[s ] t h at Co n g res s i m b u ed a p ro ced u ral b ar wi t h j u ri s d i ct i o n al

c o n s e q uen ces

. ” Kwai Fu n W o n g

, 5 75 U.S. at 4 1 0

. Th i s ph ras e p ro v i d es t h e l i n k

b et ween t h e 3 0 -d ay fi l i n g d ead l i n e an d t h e g ran t o f ju ri s d ict i o n t o t he t ax co u rt t h at

-6

-o t h er s t at u t o ry p ro v i s i o n s l ack

. Cf. Hen d ers o n

, 5 6 2 U.S. at 4 3 8 (fi nd i n g t h at a 1 2 0

-

d ay dead l i n e “ [i ] n o rd er t o o b t ai n rev i ew” “ do es n o t s p eak i n ju ri sd i ct i o n al t erm s o r

refer i n an y way t o t h e ju ri s di ct i o n o f t h e Vet eran s Co u rt ”); G o n zal ez v

. T h al er, 5 6 5

U.S. 13 4

, 1 4 6

– 4 7 (2 0 1 2 ) (reject i n g t h e arg u m en t t h at pl aci n g a p ro vi s i o n i n a s ect i o n

co n tai n i n g ju ri sd i ct io n al p ro v i s i o n s m ak es i t ju ri s d i ct i ona l) ; S e be lius, 56 8 U.S. at 1 5 4

(fi n di n g t h at t h e l an g u ag e “ m ay o b t a i n a h eari n g ” d o es n o t s p eak i n j u ri s d i ct i o n al

t erm s ). W h i l e t here m i g h t be al t ern at i v e w a ys t h a t Co n gres s co u l d h av e s t at ed t h e

ju ri s d i ct i o n al n at ure o f t h e s t at u t e m o re p l ai n l y, i t h a s s p o k en cl earl y en o u g h to

es t ab l i s h t h at § 6 3 3 0 (d )(1 )’ s 3 0-d ay fi l i n g d ead l in e i s ju ri s d i ct i o nal

. 3 See Du g g an

,
8 7 9 F.3 d at 1 0 3 4 ; Seb el i u s , 5 6 8 U.S. at 1 5 3

.

Bo ech l er al s o co n t en d s t h at co u n ti n g t h e 3 0 -d ay fi l i n g dead l i n e fro m t h e d at e

o f d et erm i n at i o n rat h er th an t h e d at e o f recei p t i s a v i o l at i on o f d ue pro ces s o r eq u al

p ro t ect i o n u n d er t he Fi ft h Am en d m en t

. W e rev i ew t h i s q u es t io n o f l aw d e n o vo

. See

Li n n Farm s an d Ti m

b er Lt d

. P’ s h i p v

. Un i o n Pac. R. Co

., 6 6 1 F.3 d 3 5 4

, 3 5 7 (8 t h Ci r.

2 0 1 1 ). To s at i sfy du e p ro ces s

, t h e g ov ern m en t m u s t “ p ro v id e o wn ers n o t i ce an d

o p p o rt u ni t y fo r heari n g ap p ro p ri at e t o t h e n at ure o f t h e cas e.” Id

. (i nt ern al q u o t at i o n

m ark s om i t t ed ). “ T h e Su p rem e Co u rt h as l o n g h el d t h at wh en t h e [g o v ern m en t ]

ch o os es t o reg u l at e d i fferen t ial l y

, wi t h t he l aws fal l i n g u n eq u al l y o n d i fferen t

g e o g r a p h i c areas

. . . t he Eq ual Pro t ect i o n Cl au s e i s n o t v io l at ed so l o n g as t h ere i s

n o u n d erl y i n g d i s cri m i nat i o n ag ai n s t p art i cu l ar p ers o n s or g ro u p s

. Th e Eq u al

Pro t ect i on Cl au s e p ro t ect s p eo p l e, n o t p l aces .” Reed er v

. Kan s as Ci t y Bd

. o f Po l i ce

Co m m ’ rs , 7 9 6 F.2 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 3 (8 t h Ci r. 1 9 8 6).

3 Becau s e we h o l d t hat § 6 3 3 0(d )(1 ) i s ju ri sd i ct i o n al

, Bo ech l er is n o t en t i t l ed

t o eq u i t ab l e t o l l i ng

. See Kwai Fu n W on g

, 5 7 5 U.S. at 4 0 8

– 0 9 (h o l d i n g t h at a

l i ti g an t ’ s fai lu re t o co m

pl y wi t h a ju ri s di ct i o n al b ar d ep ri v es a co urt o f al l au t h o ri t y

t o h ear a cas e ev en i f eq u i ta ble co n s i d erat i on s wo ul d s u p p o rt ex t en d in g t h e p res cri b ed

t i m e p eri o d ).

-7

-A s t at u to ry t im e l i m i t ch al l en g ed as an arb i t r ary an d i rrat i o n al cl as s i fi cat i o n

t h at v i ol at es d u e p ro ces s o r eq u al p r o t ect i o n

, wh i ch d o es n o t d raw a s u s p ect

cl as s ifi cat i o n o r v i ol at e a fu n d am en t al ri g h t

, n eed on l y b e s up p o rt ed b y a r a t i o n al

l eg i s lat i v e p u rp o s e. See Ho l der v

. Go n zal es

, 4 9 9 F.3 d 8 2 5 , 8 3 0 –3 1 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 7 )

(reject i ng cl ai m t hat a l aw req u i ri n g ap p eal s t o b e fi led i n V i rg in i a v io lat ed eq u al

p ro t ect i o n b ecau s e n o n -Vi rg i n i an s are n ot a p ro t ect ed cl as s ); s ee al so Un it ed St at es

v

. Pri or, 1 0 7 F.3 d 6 54

, 6 60

– 6 1 (8 t h Ci r. 1 9 97 ) (ap p l y i n g rat i o n al b a s i s rev i ew to

cri m i n al d efen d an t ’ s ch al l en g e t o s t at u t e o f li m i t at i o ns as arb i t rary i n v io l at i o n o f

Fi ft h Am en d m en t ). A s t at u t o ry t i m e p eri od ’ s st art i n g p o i nt s at i s fi es rat i o n a l b as i s

rev i ew i f i t p ro m o t es an ag en cy ’ s “ fi s cal i nt eg ri t y ” b y i n s u ri n g a wo rk ab l e d ead l i n e

an d reas o n ab l e t i m efram e. See Bo y d v

. Bo w en

, 7 9 7 F.2 d 6 2 4

, 6 2 6

– 2 7 (8 t h Ci r. 1 9 8 6 )

(u p h ol d in g SSA s t at u t e o f l i m i t at i o n s req ui ri ng ap p l i cat i o n b e m ad e wi t h i n s ix

m o nt h s aft er ch i l d ren reach ed ag e o f m ajo ri t y ). Bo e c h l e r b ears t h e b u rd en to

es t ab l i s h t h at th e fi l i n g dead l i n e i n § 6 3 3 0 (d )(1 ) i s arb it rary an d irrat i o n al

. L u n d een

v . Can ad i an Pac. R. Co

. , 5 3 2 F.3 d 6 8 2, 6 89

– 9 0 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 8 ).

Bo ech l er arg u es t h at t h e 3 0 -d ay fi li ng d ead li n e is arb i trary an d i rrat i o n a l

b ecau s e i t is cal cu l at ed fro m t h e d at e o f d et erm i n at i o n rat h er t h an t h e d at e of recei pt

v i a cert i fi ed m ai l an d s u ch a cal cu l at i o n m et h o d m ay res ul t i n a 2

- or 3 -d ay

d i s crep an cy i n recei p t d at e d ep en d i n g o n w h ere t h e t ax p ay er l i v es i n rel at i o n t o a n

IRS m ai l er. Ho wev er, cal cu l at i n g t he fi l i n g d ead l i n e fro m t h e d at e o f d et erm i n at i o n

s t ream l i n es an d s i m

p l i fi es t h e co m

p l ex u n dert ak i ng o f en fo rci n g t h e t ax co d e. If t h e

IRS were req u ired t o wai t 3 0 d ay s fro m t h e dat e t hat each i n d i v id u al recei v ed n o t i ce,

i t w o u ld b e u n ab l e t o l ev y at t h e s t at u t o ry

, u n i fo rm t i m e. Cal cu lat i n g fro m t h e d at e

o f d et erm i n at i on gu a r d s a g a in s t t ax pay ers refu si n g t o accep t d el i very of t h e n o t i ce

an d p ro m o t es effi ci en t t ax en fo rcem en t b y e n s u ri n g a reas o n ab l e an d wo rk ab l e

t i m efram e an d d ead l i n e. Bas ed o n t h es e rat i o n al reas on s fo r t h e cal cu lat i o n m et h o d,

an d Bo ech l er’ s i n ab il i t y to i d e ntify an y act u al d i s cri m i n at i o n o r d i s cri m i n at o ry i n t en t

,

-8

-t h e 3 0 -d ay fi li n g d ead l i n e fro m t h e d at e o f d et erm i n a t i o n d o es n o t v i o l at e t h e Fi ft h

Am en d m en t

.

I I I . Co ncl us i o n

Fo r t h e fo reg o i n g reas o n s , we affi rm

.

KELLY, Ci rcu i t J u d ge, co n cu rri n g i n p art an d co n cu rri n g i n t h e ju d g m en t

.

In 2 0 0 3

, we s q u arel y h el d th at t h e 3 0 -d ay fi l i ng d e a d l i n e in 2 6 U.S.C.

§ 63 3 0 (d )(1 ) i s ju r i s d i c t i o n a l

. See Ts ch i d a v

. Co m m ’ r, 5 7 F. Ap p ’ x 7 15

, 7 1 5

– 1 6

(8 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 3 ) (co n cl u d i n g th at “ t h e u n t i m el y fi l i n g d ep ri v ed t he tax co u rt o f

ju ri s d i ct i o n ”). A s an un p u b li s h ed p er cu ri am op i n i o n

, Ts ch i d a i s n o t b i n d i n g

p reced en t

, b u t i t i s rel ev an t i n s ofar as it h as p ers u as iv e v al u e. See 8 t h Ci r. R. 3 2 .1 A;

W h i t e v . NFL, 7 5 6 F.3 d 5 8 5

, 5 9 5 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 14 ).

Th i rt een y ears aft er Ts ch i d a was d eci d ed

, we reach ed t h e s am e co ncl u s i o n in

a p u b l i s h ed o p i ni o n

. W e ex p l ai n ed t h at

, as a “ p rereq u i s i t e [ ] t o t h e t ax co urt ’ s

ex erci s e of ju ri s d ict i o n ,” “ t h e tax p ay er m us t fi le a p et i t i o n ch al l en gi n g [a n o t i ce o f]

d et erm i n at i o n wi t h i n t h i r t y d a ys aft er t h e d et erm i n at i o n i s i s s u ed .” Hau p t m an v.

Co m m ’ r, 8 3 1 F.3 d 9 5 0

, 9 5 3 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 1 6 ) (cl ean ed up ). To s u p p o rt t h i s co n cl u s i o n,

we ci t ed a Sev en t h Ci rcu i t o pi n i o n ho l di n g t h at “ [u ] n l es s a t ax p ay er fu l fi l l s t h e

s t at u to ry p rereq ui s it es fo r i n v o k i n g t h e Tax Co u rt ’ s ju ri s d i ct i o n

, in cl u di n g fi l i n g a

t i m el y pet i t i o n u n d er s ect i o n 6 3 3 0 (d )(1 ), t h e co u rt m u st d i s m i ss a p et i ti o n fo r l ack o f

ju ri s d i ct i o n .” See Gray v

. Co m m ’ r, 7 2 3 F.3 d 7 9 0 , 7 93 (7 th Ci r. 2 0 1 3 ). 4

4 Hau p t m an an d Gray w ere d eci d e d a ft er t h e Su p rem e Co u rt h ad ad o p t ed a

cl ear-s t at em en t ru l e an d “ rep eat ed l y h el d t hat fi l i n g d ea d l i n es ord i n ari l y are n ot ju ri s d i ct i o n al .” See Seb el i u s v

. Au b u rn Reg ’ l M ed

. Ct r., 5 6 8 U.S. 1 45

, 15 4 (2 0 1 3 )

-9

-Th e co u rt co n cl u d es t h at o ur s t at em en t i n Hau p tm an w as d ict a b ecau s e

“ t h e g rav am en of [Hau p t m an ’ s] h ol d i n g was l i m i t e d t o t h e q u es ti o n o f wh et h er t h e

t ax co u rt ’ s ju ri s d i ct io n ex t en d ed t o s u p pl em en t al n o t i ces o f det erm in at i o n ,” n ot

o ri g i nal n o t i ces o f d et erm i n a t i o n

. An te at 4

. Bu t th e t ax p ay er’ s arg u m en t in

Hau pt m an was th at th e t ax co u rt l ack ed ju ri s d ict i o n

. In res o l v i ng t h at i s s u e, we

d eci d ed t h at (1 ) th e tax co u rt h ad ju ri s d i ct i o n o ver t h e o ri g i n al no t i ce o f d et erm i n at i o n

an d (2 ) t h ere w ere n o ad d i t i o n al req u i rem en t s fo r t h e t ax co u rt t o acq u ire j u ri s d i ct i o n

o v e r t h e s u p p l em en t al n o ti ces

. See Hau p t m an

, 8 3 1 F.3 d at 9 5 3

. I do n ot t h i n k w e

co u ld h av e fo un d t h ere was ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er t h e s u p p l em en t al n o t i ces wi th o u t al s o

fi nd i ng t h ere was ju ri s d i ct io n ov er t h e o ri g i n al no t i ce. See i d

. (n ot i n g t h at “ t h e s am e

ju ri s d i ct i o n al p re req u is i t es ap p l y ” t o bo t h o ri gi n al an d s up p l em en t al n o t i ces ).

A n d we ex p l i ci tl y fo u nd th at t h e t ax co u rt h ad ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er t h e o ri gi n al n o t i c e

b ecau s e b o t h ju ri s d ict i o n al p rereq ui s it es were s at i s fi ed

. See i d

. Al t h o ug h t h i s i s s u e

was n o t c o n t e s t e d b y t h e p art ies

, I b el i ev e i t was n eces s ary t o o u r deci s i o n

. See

San zo n e v

. M ercy Heal t h, 9 5 4 F.3 d 1 0 3 1 , 1 0 3 9 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 2 0 ) (s t at in g t h at d i ct a i s

“ a ju di ci al co m m en t . . . t hat i s u n n eces s ary t o t h e d eci si o n ” (cl ean ed u p )).

As t h e co u rt no t es

, d eem i n g t h e 30 -d ay fi l in g d ead l in e i n 2 6 U.S.C. §

6 3 3 0 (d )(1 ) ju ri s di ct i o n a l i s an u n u s u al d ep art ure fro m t h e o rd i n ary ru l e t hat fi l i n g

d ead li n es are “ q u i n t es s en t i al cl ai m -p ro ces s i n g ru l es .” See Hen d ers o n ex rel

.

Hen ders o n v

. Sh i n s ek i

, 5 6 2 U.S. 4 2 8, 4 3 5 (2 0 1 1 ). Th i s m ay h a v e “ d ras t i c”

co n s e q u en ces fo r li t ig an t s

, i d

., an d I am co ncern ed t h e b u rd en m ay fal l

d i s p ro p o rt i o nat el y o n l o w-i nco m e t ax p ay ers

, as t h e am i cu s s u gg es ts

. I a m n o t

co n vi n ced t h e s t at u t e co n t ai n s a s u ffi ci en t ly cl ear s tat em e n t t o ju s t ify t h is res u l t

.
See M y ers v. Co m m ’ r, 9 2 8 F.3 d 1 0 2 5

, 1 0 3 6 (D.C. Ci r. 2 0 1 9 ) (h o l d i n g t h at t h e “ n earl y

i d en t i cal ” fi l in g d ead li ne i n 2 6 U .S.C. § 76 2 3 (b )(4 ) i s n o t ju ri s di ct i o n al ). Bu t i n l i g ht

o f o u r l o n g -s tan d i n g p reced en t , I co n cu r i n t h e co u rt ’ s ju d g m en t

.

__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

(co l l ect i n g cas es ).

-1 0

-