United States Tax Court

162 T.C. No. 7

MOHAMED K. ABDO AND FARDOWSA J. FARAH,

Petitioners

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent

—————

Docket No. 5514-20. Filed April 2, 2024.

—————

R issued Ps a notice of deficiency dated December 2, 

2019. The notice specified March 2, 2020, as the last day 

to petition the Court. That date was not a Saturday, 

Sunday, or legal holiday in the District of Columbia. 

Ps mailed the Petition on March 17, 2020.

Ps resided in Ohio at all relevant times. On March 

31, 2020, the President issued a major disaster declaration 

under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121–

5207, with respect to Ohio as a result of the COVID-19 

pandemic. The declaration identified the disaster 

conditions as “beginning on January 20, 2020, and 

continuing.”

On September 2, 2020, R filed a Motion to Dismiss 

for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the Petition was 

not filed within the time prescribed by I.R.C. § 6213(a) or 

I.R.C. § 7502. Ps contend that I.R.C. § 7508A(d), which 

provides for a mandatory 60-day extension of certain taxrelated deadlines by reason of a federally declared disaster, 

operated in conjunction with the President’s declaration to 

automatically extend the filing deadline.

Served 04/02/24
2

On June 11, 2021, final regulations were issued with 

respect to I.R.C. § 7508A(d). See Treas. Reg. § 301.7508A1(g). R contends that the regulations apply to this case, 

that they are entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., 

Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and 

that the Petition was untimely filed under their provisions. 

Ps agree that Chevron provides the proper framework for 

the Court to review the regulations and that the deadline 

to file their Petition was not extended under the 

regulations. Ps contend, however, that the Petition was 

timely under all reasonable constructions of I.R.C.

§ 7508A(d) and that Treas. Reg. § 301.7508A-1(g)(1) and (2) 

is invalid.

Held: I.R.C. § 7508A(d) provides for an 

unambiguously self-executing postponement period for the 

filing of a petition with the Court for a redetermination of 

a deficiency.

Held, further, Treas. Reg. § 301.7508A-1(g)(1) 

and (2) is invalid to the extent it limits the non-pensionrelated “time-sensitive acts that are postponed for the 

mandatory 60-day postponement period . . . [to] the acts 

determined to be postponed by the Secretary’s exercise of 

authority under [I.R.C. §] 7508A(a).”

Held, further, Ps were entitled to an automatic, 

mandatory 60-day postponement period from January 20, 

2020, to at least March 20, 2020, to file their Petition. 

Ps’ Petition was filed timely, and we have jurisdiction. 

R’s Motion will be denied.

—————

Megan L. Sullivan and David L. Meenach, for petitioner.

Louis H. Hill and Eric O. Young, for respondent.

OPINION

MARSHALL, Judge: This deficiency case is before the Court on 

respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Motion) on the 
3

ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by 

section 6213(a)1 or section 7502. To decide the Motion, we must 

interpret for the first time section 7508A(d), which provides for the 

mandatory 60-day extension of certain tax-related deadlines by reason 

of a federally declared disaster.2 We will deny respondent’s Motion for 

the reasons set forth below.

Background

The following facts are derived from the pleadings, the parties’ 

Motion papers, and the Exhibits attached thereto. These facts are 

stated solely for the purpose of ruling on the Motion and not as findings 

of fact in this case. See Rule 1(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Pearson v. 

Commissioner, 149 T.C. 424, 425 (2017). Petitioners resided in Ohio at 

all relevant times.3

Respondent issued petitioners a notice of deficiency dated 

December 2, 2019, in which respondent determined a $9,634 income tax 

deficiency and a $166 accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) for 

petitioners’ taxable year 2018. The 90th day after December 2, 2019, 

was Sunday, March 1, 2020. The notice of deficiency specified the 

following day, March 2, 2020, as the last day to petition the Court. That 

date was not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday in the District of 

Columbia. The parties agree that petitioners mailed their Petition to 

the Court on March 17, 2020.

Between March 19 and July 9, 2020, the Court did not receive 

mail because of the Court’s closure in response to the Coronavirus

1 Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue 

Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, regulation references are to the 

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and 

Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

2 Section 7508A(d) has the heading “Mandatory 60-day extension.” Although 

60 days is a minimum duration, see § 7508A(d)(1) and (2), in keeping with the parties’ 

arguments and for ease of discussion throughout, we will generally refer to a section 

7508A(d) extension as lasting 60 days.

3 Absent stipulation to the contrary, any appeal of this case would lie to the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. See § 7482(b)(1)(A), (2). Where relevant 

to the discussion, we note that court’s precedent. See Bontrager v. Commissioner, 151 

T.C. 213, 215 n.2 (2018); Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 757 (1970), aff’d, 445 

F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971).
4

Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. On July 10, 2020, the Court 

received and filed the Petition.

On March 13, 2020, the President of the United States declared a 

nationwide emergency under section 501(b) of the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 5121–5207, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (Nationwide 

Emergency Declaration). See Letter to Federal Agencies on an 

Emergency Determination for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 

(COVID-19) Pandemic Under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act, 2020 Daily Comp. Pres. Doc. 159 (Mar. 13, 

2020). The President also approved major disaster declarations for each 

of the 50 states pursuant to section 401 of the Stafford Act. On 

March 31, 2020, Pete Gaynor, the administrator of the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), at the direction of the 

President, signed DR-4507-OH (Ohio Disaster Declaration), which 

declared the State of Ohio a major disaster area. See Ohio; Major 

Disaster and Related Determinations, 85 Fed. Reg. 26,702 (May 5, 

2020). As with each other state disaster declaration, the Ohio Disaster 

Declaration identified the pandemic conditions warranting the 

declaration as “beginning on January 20, 2020, and continuing.” See id.

at 26,703.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) subsequently issued a series 

of notices in which the stated purpose was to provide relief under section 

7508A(a) pursuant to the Nationwide Emergency Declaration. Section 

7508A(a) generally gives the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) or his 

delegate (i.e., the IRS) the discretion to postpone certain tax-related 

deadlines for up to one year for those taxpayers he or it determines to 

be affected by a federally declared disaster.4 Included in this series of 

IRS notices was I.R.S. Notice 2020-23, 2020-18 I.R.B. 742, which was 

issued on April 11, 2020.5 Among other specified deadline extensions, 

Notice 2020-23 extended the deadline for filing a Tax Court petition to 

July 15, 2020, for those taxpayers who had a petition due to be filed on 

4 When discussing the conferee of discretion in section 7508A(a), we hereinafter 

refer to the Secretary and IRS interchangeably. See § 7701(a)(11)(B), (12)(A)(i). 

5 Also included in this series were, e.g., I.R.S. Notice 2020-17, 2020-15 I.R.B. 

590 (postponing the due date for making federal income tax payments), I.R.S. Notice 

2020-18, 2020-15 I.R.B. 590 (postponing the due date for filing federal income tax 

returns), and I.R.S. Notice 2020-20, 2020-16 I.R.B. 660 (postponing the due date for 

filing federal gift and generation-skipping transfer tax returns and making federal gift 

and generation-skipping transfer tax payments).
5

or after April 1, 2020, and before July 15, 2020. Id. at 743–44. Notice 

2020-23 specified, however, that it did not provide relief for the period 

for filing a petition if that period expired before April 1, 2020. Id. at 744.

On September 2, 2020, respondent filed the Motion on the ground 

that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 

6213(a) or section 7502. Section 6213(a) provides, in pertinent part, that 

a taxpayer may file a petition with the Court for a redetermination of a 

deficiency within 90 days after the notice of deficiency is mailed, not 

counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of 

Columbia as the last day. Section 7502 generally allows a timely mailed 

petition to be treated as timely filed.

On October 8, 2020, petitioners filed a Response to respondent’s 

Motion. Proceeding pro se, petitioners stated in the Response that they 

did not receive a copy of respondent’s Motion and requested a copy. 

Thereafter, on October 19, 2020, petitioners filed a First Supplement to 

their Response to respondent’s Motion. In the First Supplement, 

petitioners stated: “We suggest the Tax Court has jurisdiction to hear 

our case, and to mitigate to ‘zero’ the IRS assessment and return the 

withheld refunds. We request the Tax Court to set a trial date in 

Columbus, OH.”

On November 19, 2020, counsel entered an appearance on 

petitioners’ behalf and filed petitioners’ Supplemental Objection to 

respondent’s Motion. In that filing, petitioners contended that section 

7508A(d) operated in conjunction with the Ohio Disaster Declaration to 

extend the deadline to file their Petition. Subsection (d) was added to 

section 7508A on December 20, 2019, and made effective with respect to 

federally declared disasters declared after that date. Further 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-94, div. Q, § 205, 

133 Stat. 2534, 3245–46 (2019). On January 13, 2021, the Treasury 

Department and the IRS proposed regulations with respect to section 

7508A(d). See Prop. Treas. Reg. § 301.7508A-1(g), 86 Fed. Reg. 2607, 

2613 (Jan. 13, 2021). On February 12, 2021, respondent filed a reply to 

petitioners’ supplemental objection, disputing that section 7508A(d) 

applies in this case. On June 11, 2021, the Treasury Department and

the IRS issued final regulations with respect to section 7508A(d). See

Treas. Reg. § 301.7508A-1(g); T.D. 9950, 86 Fed. Reg. 31,146, 31,150

(June 11, 2021). The final regulations were issued following notice and 

comment procedures. See T.D. 9950, 86 Fed. Reg. at 31,147; Prop. Treas. 

Reg. § 301.7508A-1, 86 Fed. Reg. at 2607–08. In correspondence with 

subsection (d), the final regulations were made effective with respect to 
6

disasters declared on or after December 21, 2019. See T.D. 9950, 86 Fed. 

Reg. at 31,149–50.

On August 29, 2023, the Court ordered the parties to address the 

applicability of the final regulations to this case and the deference, if 

any, to be given to the regulations. On October 31, 2023, the parties 

filed their respective simultaneous briefs. On November 6, 2023, the 

Court permitted the parties to file simultaneous answering briefs, which 

were filed by respondent and petitioners on November 30, 2023, and 

December 1, 2023, respectively.

Respondent contends that the final regulations apply to this case, 

they are entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and petitioners did 

not timely file their Petition under their provisions. Petitioners agree 

that Chevron provides the proper framework for the Court to review the 

regulations and that the deadline to file their Petition was not extended 

under the regulations. They contend, however, that the Petition was 

timely filed under all reasonable constructions of section 7508A(d) and 

that Treasury Regulation § 301.7508A-1(g)(1) and (2) is invalid.

Discussion

I. The Statutory and Regulatory Text

We first set forth the relevant statutory and regulatory text.

A. Section 7508A

Section 7508A, as in effect when petitioners’ petition was filed, 

provided as follows:

Sec. 7508A. Authority to postpone certain deadlines by 

reason of Presidentially declared disaster or terroristic or 

military actions.

(a) In general.—In the case of a taxpayer determined 

by the Secretary to be affected by a federally declared 

disaster (as defined by section 165(i)(5)(A)) or a terroristic 

or military action (as defined in section 692(c)(2)), the 

Secretary may specify a period of up to 1 year that may be 

disregarded in determining, under the internal revenue 

laws, in respect of any tax liability of such taxpayer—

(1) whether any of the acts described in 

paragraph (1) of section 7508(a) were performed 
7

within the time prescribed therefor (determined 

without regard to extension under any other 

provision of this subtitle for periods after the date 

(determined by the Secretary) of such disaster or 

action),

(2) the amount of any interest, penalty, 

additional amount, or addition to the tax for periods 

after such date, and

(3) the amount of any credit or refund.

(b) Special rules regarding pensions, etc.—In the 

case of a pension or other employee benefit plan, or any 

sponsor, administrator, participant, beneficiary, or other 

person with respect to such plan, affected by a disaster or 

action described in subsection (a), the Secretary may 

specify a period of up to 1 year which may be disregarded 

in determining the date by which any action is required or 

permitted to be completed under this title. No plan shall 

be treated as failing to be operated in accordance with the 

terms of the plan solely as the result of disregarding any 

period by reason of the preceding sentence.

(c) Special rules for overpayments.—The rules of 

section 7508(b) shall apply for purposes of this section.

(d) Mandatory 60-day extension.—

(1) In general.—In the case of any qualified 

taxpayer, the period—

(A) beginning on the earliest incident 

date specified in the declaration to which the 

disaster area referred to in paragraph (2) 

relates, and

(B) ending on the date which is 60 days 

after the latest incident date so specified,

shall be disregarded in the same manner as a period 

specified under subsection (a).

(2) Qualified taxpayer.—For purposes of this 

subsection, the term “qualified taxpayer” means—

(A) any individual whose principal 

residence (for purposes of section 1033(h)(4)) 

is located in a disaster area,

(B) any taxpayer if the taxpayer’s 

principal place of business (other than the 

business of performing services as an 

employee) is located in a disaster area,
8

(C) any individual who is a relief 

worker affiliated with a recognized 

government or philanthropic organization 

and who is assisting in a disaster area,

(D) any taxpayer whose records 

necessary to meet a deadline for an act 

described in section 7508(a)(1) are 

maintained in a disaster area,

(E) any individual visiting a disaster 

area who was killed or injured as a result of 

the disaster, and

(F) solely with respect to a joint return, 

any spouse of an individual described in any 

preceding subparagraph of this paragraph.

(3) Disaster area.—For purposes of this 

subsection, the term “disaster area” has the meaning 

given such term under subparagraph (B) of section 

165(i)(5) with respect to a Federally declared 

disaster (as defined in subparagraph (A) of such 

section).

(4) Application to rules regarding pensions.—

In the case of any person described in subsection (b), 

a rule similar to the rule of paragraph (1) shall apply 

for purposes of subsection (b) with respect to—

(A) making contributions to a qualified 

retirement plan (within the meaning of 

section 4974(c)) under section 219(f)(3), 

404(a)(6), 404(h)(1)(B), or 404(m)(2),

(B) making distributions under section 

408(d)(4),

(C) recharacterizing contributions 

under section 408A(d)(6), and

(D) making a rollover under section 

402(c), 403(a)(4), 403(b)(8), or 408(d)(3).

(5) Coordination with periods specified by the 

Secretary.—Any period described in paragraph (1) 

with respect to any person (including by reason of 

the application of paragraph (4)) shall be in addition 

to (or concurrent with, as the case may be) any 

period specified under subsection (a) or (b) with 

respect to such person.
9

B. Treasury Regulation § 301.7508A-1(g)

The final regulations issued with respect to section 7508A(d) set 

forth, in pertinent part, the following rules as to its operation:

Treas. Reg. § 301.7508A-1(g) Mandatory 60-day 

postponement—

(1) In general. In addition to (or concurrent with) 

the postponement period specified by the Secretary in an 

exercise of the authority under section 7508A(a) to 

postpone time-sensitive acts by reason of a federally 

declared disaster, qualified taxpayers (as defined in section 

7508A(d)(2)) are entitled to a mandatory 60-day 

postponement period during which the time to perform 

those time-sensitive acts is disregarded in the same 

manner as under section 7508A(a). The rules of this 

paragraph (g)(1) apply with respect to a postponement 

period specified by the Secretary under section 7508A(b), 

to postpone acts as provided in section 7508A(d)(4). Except 

for the acts set forth in paragraph (g)(2) of this section, 

section 7508A(d) does not apply to postpone any acts.

(2) Acts postponed. The time-sensitive acts that are 

postponed for the mandatory 60-day postponement period 

are the acts determined to be postponed by the Secretary’s 

exercise of authority under section 7508A(a) or (b). In 

addition, in the case of any person described in section 

7508A(b), the time-sensitive acts postponed for the 

mandatory 60-day postponement period include those 

described in section 7508A(d)(4):

(i) Making contributions to a qualified 

retirement plan (within the meaning of section 

4974(c)) under section 219(f)(3), 404(a)(6), 

404(h)(1)(B), or 404(m)(2);

(ii) Making distributions under section 

408(d)(4);

(iii) Recharacterizing contributions under 

section 408A(d)(6); and

(iv) Making a rollover under section 402(c), 

403(a)(4), 403(b)(8), or 408(d)(3).
10

II. The Parties’ Contentions, In General

Respondent contends that, because they did not mail their 

Petition until March 17, 2020, petitioners failed to file their Petition 

within the time prescribed by sections 6213(a) and 7502 and the Court 

therefore lacks jurisdiction to redetermine the income tax deficiency 

determined for their taxable year 2018. See Hallmark Rsch. Collective 

v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126 (2022) (reaffirming that a timely filed 

petition is a prerequisite to the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction in a 

deficiency case); see also Sanders v. Commissioner, No. 15143-22, 

161 T.C. (Nov. 2, 2023) (reaffirming the Court’s holding in Hallmark 

Rsch. Collective). Petitioners contend that section 7508A(d) entitled 

them to an automatic, mandatory postponement of time to file until 

March 21, 2020, and that their Petition was therefore timely. The 

parties’ dispute centers on the proper interpretation of section 7508A(d) 

and whether Treasury Regulation § 301.7508A-1(g)(1) and (2) provides 

a valid construction of the statute.

Section 7508A(d)(1) provides that, in the case of any “qualified 

taxpayer,” the period beginning on the earliest incident date specified in 

the declaration to which the relevant disaster area relates and ending 

on the date which is 60 days after the latest incident date so specified 

“shall be disregarded in the same manner as a period specified under 

[section 7508A(a)].” Section 7508A(d)(2)(A) defines a “qualified 

taxpayer” to include an individual whose principal residence is located 

in a disaster area. Section 7508A(d)(3), by cross-reference to section 

165(i)(5)(A) and (B), defines a disaster area as an area determined by 

the President to warrant federal assistance under the Stafford Act. 

Petitioners contend that they are qualified taxpayers because they 

resided in Ohio at all relevant times.

Petitioners argue that Congress clearly intended section 7508A(d) 

to operate in a mandatory and automatic manner and, therefore, the 

Secretary’s interpretation of section 7508A(d) fails under Chevron

step 1. Specifically, petitioners contend that section 7508A(d) provides 

a mandatory extension of the deadlines and gives no discretion to the 

Secretary. In effect, petitioners argue that section 7508A(d)(1) provides 

an unambiguously self-executing postponement period that, by virtue of 

its “shall be disregarded in the same manner as a period specified under 

[section 7508A(a)]” language, incorporates all of the acts referenced by 

section 7508A(a). Section 7508A(a) references “any of the acts described 

in paragraph (1) of section 7508(a).” Section 7508(a)(1) generally 

postpones the time for performing certain tax-related acts, including the 
11

filing of a petition with the Court for a redetermination of a deficiency, 

for individuals serving in a combat zone for the U.S. Armed Forces.6 See

§ 7508(a)(1)(C). Petitioners therefore conclude that they were entitled 

to an automatic, mandatory 60-day postponement period from 

January 20, 2020, the earliest incident date specified in the Ohio 

Disaster Declaration,7 to March 21, 2020, to file their Petition.8

In reaching this conclusion, petitioners interpret section 7508A(d) 

to provide for “a mandatory postponement period for taxpayers affected 

6 As in effect when petitioners’ Petition was filed, section 7508(a)(1) provided 

11 categories of acts as follows: 

(A) Filing any return of income, estate, gift, employment, or 

excise tax;

(B) Payment of any income, estate, gift, employment, or excise 

tax or any installment thereof or of any other liability to the United 

States in respect thereof;

(C) Filing a petition with the Tax Court for redetermination of 

a deficiency, or for review of a decision rendered by the Tax Court;

(D) Allowance of a credit or refund of any tax;

(E) Filing a claim for credit or refund of any tax;

(F) Bringing suit upon any such claim for credit or refund;

(G) Assessment of any tax;

(H) Giving or making any notice or demand for the payment of 

any tax, or with respect to any liability to the United States in respect 

of any tax;

(I) Collection, by the Secretary, by levy or otherwise, of the 

amount of any liability in respect of any tax;

(J) Bringing suit by the United States, or any officer on its 

behalf, in respect of any liability in respect of any tax; and

(K) Any other act required or permitted under the internal 

revenue laws specified by the Secretary . . . .

7 Petitioners suggest that section 7508A(d)(1) does not require that the earliest 

and latest specified incident dates be different dates and that, because January 20, 

2020, is the only incident date specified in the Ohio Disaster Declaration, it is both the 

earliest and latest specified date. Respondent raises no dispute in this regard.

8 Petitioners calculate March 21, 2020, as the 60th day after January 20, 2020. 

Because 2020 was a leap year, however, we note that March 20, 2020, is in fact the 

60th day after January 20, 2020.

We further note that on February 10, 2023, FEMA and the Department of 

Homeland Security amended the “notices of major disaster declarations and related 

determinations resulting from the . . . pandemic beginning on January 20, 2020.” 

Major Disaster Declarations and Related Determinations: Expiration of COVID-19-

Related Measures, 88 Fed. Reg. 8884 (Feb. 10, 2023). The amendments provided that 

“the incident period for all COVID-19 major disaster declarations and the nationwide 

emergency declaration will close effective May 11, 2023.” Id. Because these 

amendments have no impact on the outcome of this case, we address them no further.
12

by federally declared disasters, separate from but complementing the 

discretionary postponement provision in section 7508A(a).” And, 

because Treasury Regulation § 301.7508A-1(g)(1) and (2) limits the acts 

subject to the mandatory postponement period of section 7508A(d) to 

“the acts determined to be postponed by the Secretary’s exercise of 

authority under section 7508A(a) or (b),” petitioners construe the 

regulations as “nullify[ing] subsection (d), in its entirety, and 

convert[ing] a mandatory provision to a permissive provision.” 

Contending that the regulations thereby conflict with the statutory 

scheme and its legislative purpose, petitioners stake their position that 

the regulations are invalid under the Chevron standard.

Respondent contends that the “shall be disregarded in the same 

manner as a period specified under [section 7508A(a)]” language of 

section 7508A(d)(1) does not clearly provide a self-executing 

postponement period for the acts referenced by section 7508A(a) but that 

it is instead silent and ambiguous as to the acts to which the mandatory 

postponement period applies. To that end, respondent further contends 

that the statute is ambiguous in two ways: First, Congress did not 

address what specific time-sensitive acts are postponed pursuant to 

section 7508A(d), and second, Congress did not directly address 

federally declared disasters without an incident date under section 

7508A. In respondent’s view, the regulations are necessary to resolve 

these ambiguities.

Respondent contends that the regulations provide a permissible 

and reasonable construction of the statute that builds upon the 

“statutory nexus between the time-sensitive acts in I.R.C. § 7508A(a) 

and (d).” Consequently, he concludes that the regulations are entitled 

to Chevron deference. Respondent notes that the Secretary did not use 

his discretion under section 7508A(a) in response to the Ohio Disaster 

Declaration to postpone the time for petitioners to file a petition with 

the Court. Instead, he points us to the Nationwide Emergency 

Declaration on which the Secretary relied to issue Notice 2020-23. 

Because the Secretary relied on the Nationwide Emergency Declaration 

rather than the Ohio Disaster Declaration to extend certain timeframes 

pursuant to section 7508A(a), respondent argues that the Ohio Disaster 

Declaration does not trigger section 7508A(d). In his view, the 

regulations implement respondent’s reading of section 7508A(d) and 

dictate that the Ohio Disaster Declaration did not extend the time for 

petitioners to file their Petition. We disagree.
13

III. Chevron Analysis

To interpret section 7508A(d) and consider whether Treasury 

Regulation § 301.7508A-1(g)(1) and (2) provides a valid construction of 

the statute, we turn to Chevron and its familiar two-step analysis. In 

Chevron, the Supreme Court provided the following framework for court 

review of an agency’s authoritative construction of a statute:

When a court reviews an agency’s construction of the 

statute which it administers, it is confronted with two 

questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress 

has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the 

intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for 

the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the 

unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, 

the court determines Congress has not directly addressed 

the precise question at issue, the court does not simply 

impose its own construction on the statute, as would be 

necessary in the absence of an administrative 

interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous 

with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court 

is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible 

construction of the statute.

Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842–43 (footnotes omitted).

At step 1 of the Chevron analysis, we must therefore ask whether 

Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. Id. at 842. 

And, if we determine the statute is silent or ambiguous on the point, we 

proceed to Chevron step 2 where we ask whether the agency’s answer is 

based on a permissible construction of the statute. Id. at 843. 

Consequently, we do not ask whether the agency’s statutory 

interpretation is the best one possible. See Atl. Mut. Ins. Co. v. 

Commissioner, 523 U.S. 382, 389 (1998). Instead, we inquire only 

whether the agency made a reasonable policy choice in reaching its 

interpretation. Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet 

Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 986 (2005); see also Ohio Periodical Distribs., Inc. 

v. Commissioner, 105 F.3d 322, 326 (6th Cir. 1997), aff’g T.C. Memo. 

1995-496. And we defer to the agency’s interpretation unless it is 

“arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” Chevron,

467 U.S. at 843–44; see also Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Rsch. v. 

United States, 562 U.S. 44 (2011) (confirming that Chevron deference 
14

applies to both specific authority and general authority Treasury 

regulations).

Turning here to Chevron step 1, we identify the precise question 

at issue as whether section 7508A(d) automatically entitles a qualified 

taxpayer to a mandatory extension to file a petition with the Tax Court 

in the context of a federal disaster declaration containing an incident 

date. To determine whether Congress has spoken to this question, we 

consider the “plain” and “literal” language of the statute itself, the 

specific context in which the language is used, and the broader context 

of the statute as a whole. See Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 

341 (1997); Allen v. United States, 83 F.4th 564, 569 (6th Cir. 2023). 

In so doing, we employ the traditional tools of statutory construction, 

including the canons of construction.9 See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843 n.9; 

Gun Owners of Am., Inc. v. Garland, 19 F.4th 890, 904 (6th Cir. 2021); 

Sunrise Coop., Inc., 891 F.3d at 656.

Petitioners argue that section 7508A(d) unambiguously provides 

a self-executing postponement period for all of the tax-related acts 

included in section 7508(a)(1) by cross-reference to section 7508A(a). In 

their view, the contrast of the discretionary language of section 7508A(a) 

with the mandatory language of section 7508A(d) demonstrates that 

Congress intended these tax deadlines to be automatically extended 

when it added subsection (d). In support of this view, petitioners provide 

on brief the following table to illustrate the distinctions between the 

language of subsection (a) and subsection (d)(1):10

9 The Sixth Circuit has explained that “[w]hen a statute is unambiguous, resort 

to legislative history and policy considerations is improper.” Sunrise Coop., Inc. v. 

USDA, 891 F.3d 652, 658 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Koenig Sporting Goods, Inc. v. Morse 

Rd. Co. (In re Koenig), 203 F.3d 986, 988 (6th Cir. 2000)). As we conclude infra that 

the statute at issue is unambiguous, we do not consider legislative history in our 

application of the canons of construction. See Square D Co. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 

118 T.C. 299, 310 n.6 (2002) (“The extent to which extrinsic factors (i.e., factors outside 

the statutory language itself) may be considered in step 1 of a Chevron analysis may 

not be entirely clear . . . . In light of the position of the Court of Appeals, we do not 

consider legislative history as part of our analysis of step 1 of Chevron in the instant 

case.”), aff’d, 438 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2006).

10 Petitioners reproduced this table from a comment submitted with respect to 

the proposed regulations. See Jonathan L. Holbrook & Spencer F. Walters, Comment 

on Mandatory 60-Day Postponement of Certain Tax-Related Deadlines by Reason of a 

Federally Declared Disaster, at 5 (Mar. 14, 2021), https://www.regulations.gov/

comment/IRS-2021-0002-0008 (choose “Download”).
15

Aspect Subsection (a) [Subsection] (d)(1)

Whether to 

disregard

Discretionary: 

“the Secretary may specify a period”

Automatic: 

“the period . . . shall be 

disregarded”

How long to 

disregard

Discretionary: “up to 1 year” Automatic: 

“beginning on the 

earliest incident 

[date*] . . . and ending 

on the date which is 60 

days after the latest 

incident date”

For whom to 

disregard 

Discretionary: 

“a taxpayer determined by the 

Secretary to be affected”

Automatic: 

“any qualified 

taxpayer”

For what 

purposes to 

disregard 

Discretionary: 

“a period . . . that may be disregarded in 

determining . . . any of the acts described in 

paragraph (1) of section 7508(a)[

**] . . . the 

amount of any interest, penalty, additional 

amount, or addition to tax . . . and the 

amount of any credit or refund”

Automatic: 

“the period . . . 

shall[***] be 

disregarded in the 

same manner as a 

period specified under 

subsection (a)”

*Petitioners’ brief incorrectly omitted this word.

**Petitioners’ brief incorrectly refers to section 7508A(a) here.

***Emphasis added. 

According to petitioners, respondent disregards “this clear difference in 

language between subsections (a) and (d).”

Respondent, in turn, contends that section 7508A(d) is silent and 

ambiguous “in at least two ways . . . . First, Congress did not identify 

the time sensitive acts subject to I.R.C. § 7508A(d). Second, Congress 

did not specify how the mandatory postponement in I.R.C. § 7508A(d) 

applies to a Federal disaster declaration without an incident date.” 

Respondent first argues that the statute is ambiguous regarding 

whether a taxpayer has an automatic, mandatory postponement period 

for filing a Tax Court petition. Respondent contends this is so because, 

except for the rules regarding pensions described in section 7508A(d)(4), 

subsection (d) does not specify the time-sensitive acts to be postponed 

during the mandatory postponement period but only that the period is 

to be disregarded “in the same manner as a period specified under 

subsection (a).” § 7508A(d)(1). Respondent disagrees with petitioners’ 

reading of the statute to state that section 7508A(d) requires every act 

that the Secretary has discretion to postpone under section 7508A(a) to 

be independently postponed for a mandatory period under section 

7508A(d), regardless of whether the Secretary actually postponed any 

acts under section 7508A(a). According to respondent, this approach 

“clearly was not required by the language” of the statute. Respondent 
16

also argues that the statute is ambiguous because Congress did not 

specify how the mandatory postponement period in section 7508A(d) 

applies to a federal disaster declaration without an incident date. 

Concluding that the statute is ambiguous for these two reasons, 

respondent urges us to move on to Chevron step 2.

A provision will be considered ambiguous where the disputed 

language is “reasonably susceptible of different interpretations.” 

Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 470 

U.S. 451, 473 n.27 (1985); see also Gun Owners of Am., Inc., 19 F.4th 

at 904–05 (“[B]oth terms admit of more than one interpretation—that is, 

they are ambiguous.”); All. for Cmty. Media v. FCC, 529 F.3d 763, 778

(6th Cir. 2008); Lansing Dairy, Inc. v. Espy, 39 F.3d 1339, 1351 (6th Cir. 

1994). We conclude that, in the context of a federal disaster declaration 

containing an incident date, subsection (d) is not reasonably susceptible 

of different interpretations with respect to whether a qualified taxpayer 

is automatically entitled to a mandatory extension to file a petition with 

the Tax Court. We agree with petitioners that the natural reading of 

subsection (d) is that a qualified taxpayer is so entitled.

We first consider the mandatory nature of subsection (d). As the 

foregoing chart demonstrates, the mandatory language of subsection (d) 

stands in stark contrast to the discretionary language of subsection (a). 

Under the discretionary language of section 7508A(a), the Secretary 

may specify (1) whether a period is disregarded, (2) how long a period is 

disregarded, (3) for whom a period is disregarded, and (4) for what 

purposes a period is disregarded. The mandatory language of 

subsection (d), however, provides the Secretary no discretion whatsoever 

regarding any of these four aspects of the extension. Instead, 

subsection (d) provides that, for a defined person, a defined period “shall 

be disregarded” in a defined manner. On the basis of the plain and 

literal language of the statute, we thus read Congress to have clearly 

intended to provide for a postponement period that is mandatory. 

See Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States, 579 U.S. 162, 172 (2016) 

(“When a statute distinguishes between ‘may’ and ‘shall,’ it is generally 

clear that ‘shall’ imposes a mandatory duty.”); see also Antonin Scalia & 

Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 112 

(2012) (describing the “Mandatory/Permissive Canon”).

The heading of subsection (d)—“Mandatory 60-day extension”—

further confirms this reading. As has been established, “the title of a 

statute and the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of 

the text.” See Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Balt. & Ohio R.R. Co., 331 U.S. 
17

519, 528–29 (1947); see also § 7806(b) (providing that no “descriptive 

matter relating to the content of this title [shall] be given any legal 

effect”). They are, however, “‘tools available for the resolution of a doubt’ 

about the meaning of a statute.” Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 

523 U.S. 224, 234 (1998) (quoting Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen, 331 U.S. 

at 529); United States v. Nakhleh, 895 F.3d 838, 841 (6th Cir. 2018) 

(quoting Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 234). In the case of section 

7508A(d), the heading is not at any variance with the text. The language 

of subsection (d) speaks of the defined postponement period in 

mandatory terms, and the heading uses the term “mandatory” itself. 

Consequently, this is an instance in which the heading is of some use for 

interpretative purposes, and it supports our reading of the statute. 

See Caltex Oil Venture v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 18, 28 (2012); see also

Scalia & Garner, supra, at 221 (describing the “Title-and-Headings 

Canon”).

Having established our general understanding that section 

7508A(d) creates a mandatory postponement period, we next consider 

whether the statute requires that this period automatically extend the 

date for filing a Tax Court petition by at least 60 days. Respondent 

argues that the statute is silent and hence ambiguous in this regard. 

Petitioners, meanwhile, contend that section 7508A(d)(1) provides an 

unambiguously self-executing postponement period that, by virtue of 

the requirement that the period “shall be disregarded in the same 

manner as a period specified under [section 7508A(a)],” incorporates all 

of the acts referenced by section 7508A(a), including the deadline to file 

a petition with the Tax Court.

Petitioners allow that “[a]t first glance it seems possible” the “in 

the same manner” language of subsection (d)(1) could be construed as 

ambiguous, referring either to the specific time-sensitive acts which may 

be postponed by operation of section 7508A(a) or to the process by which 

the Secretary grants a postponement under subsection (a). They argue, 

however, that full consideration of the statute makes clear that 

respondent’s interpretation conflicts with both the plain wording and 

the mandatory and specific nature of subsection (d). Petitioners query:

“Why would Congress provide qualified taxpayers with an automatic 

60-day extension, only to have it limited, or even nullified if the 

Secretary doesn’t act? That makes no sense.”

We acknowledge that, in other statutory contexts, the phrase “in 

the same manner” has been construed as meaning “to use the same 

‘methodology and procedures.’” See Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. 
18

Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 545 (2012) (interpreting the section 5000A(g)(1) 

requirement that a “[s]hared responsibility payment” made with respect 

to minimum essential healthcare coverage “be assessed and collected in 

the same manner” as tax penalties); Michigan v. DeVos, 481 F. Supp. 3d 

984, 992 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (interpreting the requirement of Coronavirus 

Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 18005, 

134 Stat. 281, 568 (2020), that local educational agencies receiving 

certain funds “provide equitable services in the same manner” as 

provided under section 1117 of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965). We further acknowledge that the phrase has 

also been interpreted as ambiguous. See Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. 

EPA, 790 F.3d 934, 948 (9th Cir. 2015) (construing the 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7410(k)(6) provision for the correction of an erroneous approval, 

disapproval or promulgation by the Environmental Protection Agency 

“in the same manner as” such approval, disapproval, or promulgation as 

ambiguous with respect to whether the phrase imposed a procedural or 

substantive requirement); see also Swallows Holding, Ltd. v. 

Commissioner, 515 F.3d 162, 171 (3d Cir. 2008) (construing the section 

882(c)(2) requirement that certain returns be filed “in the manner 

prescribed in subtitle F” as ambiguous with respect to whether the term 

“manner” included an element of timeliness), vacating and remanding

126 T.C. 96 (2006). Upon conducting the required consideration of the 

plain and literal language of section 7508A(d), the specific context in 

which the language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a 

whole, however, we conclude that the “in the same manner” language of 

this statute is not “reasonably susceptible” of being interpreted to refer 

to the process or procedure by which the Secretary grants a 

postponement under subsection (a) or of demonstrating any ambiguity; 

instead, it provides for an unambiguously self-executing postponement 

period that incorporates all of the acts referenced by section 7508A(a).

To understand the requirement that the subsection (d) 

postponement period “shall be disregarded in the same manner as a 

period specified under subsection (a),” we necessarily look to section 

7508A(a). Section 7508A(a) provides, in pertinent part: “In the case of a 

taxpayer determined by the Secretary to be affected by a federally 

declared disaster . . . , the Secretary may specify a period of up to 1 year 

that may be disregarded in determining . . . whether any of the acts 

described in paragraph (1) of section 7508(a) were performed within the 

time prescribed therefor.” When we read the “shall be disregarded” 

language of subsection (d) in this context, the manner in which the 

subsection (d) postponement period must be treated becomes readily 

apparent. More specifically, the mandatory postponement period “shall 
19

be disregarded” “in determining, . . . whether any of the acts described 

in paragraph (1) of section 7508(a) were performed within the time 

prescribed therefor.”

The plain and literal language of subsections (a) and (d) read 

together demonstrates that the deadlines for “any of the acts” described 

in section 7508(a)(1) “may” be disregarded under section 7508A(a) but 

that those deadlines “shall be disregarded” under section 7508A(d). 

Petitioners and respondent appear to agree that the “may” language of 

section 7508A(a) provides the Secretary with the discretion to postpone 

deadlines for any or all of the categories of acts identified by section 

7508(a)(1). They dispute only whether the “in the same manner” 

language carries this discretion over to the mandatory postponement 

period set forth by subsection (d) (or is simply silent on the matter). But, 

we see neither ambiguity nor silence in subsection (d) on the point. 

Instead, we see a near mirror image of section 7508(a).

Section 7508(a) provides that, for a defined person, a defined 

period “shall be disregarded” in a defined manner, i.e., in determining 

whether “any of the . . . acts [described in its paragraph (1)] was 

performed within the time prescribed therefor.” We have readily 

construed that provision as requiring an extension of the time that 

includes a postponement of the period to file a petition with this Court. 

See Stone v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 617, 620–21 (1980) (“Section 

7508(a)(1)(C) excludes the period during which a member of the Armed 

Forces is present in a ‘combat zone’ in determining the time allowable 

for the filing of a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of a 

deficiency.”); Munoz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-18, 79 T.C.M. 

(CCH) 1366, 1367 (“Section 7508(a)(1)(C) serves to extend the normal 

90-day . . . period within which a petition must generally be filed by 

disregarding the time when a member of the Armed Forces is present in 

a combat zone . . . .”); see also, e.g., Hampton v. United States, 513 F.2d 

1234, 1246 (Ct. Cl. 1975) (“A Serviceman in combat is also given an 

automatic extension of time to perform certain acts under the revenue 

laws by virtue of § 7508 of the Code. . . . The postponement authorized 

under § 7508 generally applies to the filing of returns, the payment of 

any tax, the assessment of any tax, and the commencement of any 

suit.”). We read the language and context of section 7508A(d) to lend 

itself just as readily to the same interpretation.

We also view the coordination provision of section 7508A(d)(5) as 

further bolstering this interpretation. Subsection (d)(5) provides that 

“[a]ny period described in [subsection (d)](1) with respect to any person 
20

(including by reason of the application of [subsection (d)](4)) shall be in 

addition to (or concurrent with, as the case may be) any period specified 

under subsection (a) . . . with respect to such person.” We read the broad 

and inclusive language of this subsection to allow a mandatory 

extension described under section 7508A(d) to operate independently 

from any discretionary extension specified under section 7508A(a).

Having given full consideration to section 7508A(d) and its 

context, we must agree with petitioners that respondent’s interpretation 

conflicts with both the plain wording and the mandatory and specific 

nature of subsection (d). Postponement of any section 7508(a)(1) act 

would not be mandatory if it needed to be triggered by a discretionary 

act of the Secretary, who could use his discretion not to act at all. 

Instead, we think Congress’s intent is clear. For a defined person 

(a “qualified taxpayer”), a defined period (“beginning on the earliest 

incident date . . . and . . . ending on the date which is 60 days after the 

latest incident date”) “shall be disregarded in the same manner as a 

period specified under subsection (a)” of section 7508A, that is by 

mandatorily and automatically disregarding “whether any of the acts 

described in paragraph (1) of section 7508(a),” including the act of filing 

a petition with the Court, “were performed within the time prescribed 

therefor.”11

Respondent also contends that the statute is ambiguous because 

it does not address federally declared disasters without an incident date. 

In support of this contention, respondent points to the Nationwide 

Emergency Declaration that did not specify an incident date. 

Respondent contends that “Congress did not address whether the 

mandatory 60-day postponement in subsection (d) applies to Federal 

disaster declarations that do not have an incident date. Therefore, 

I.R.C. § 7508A(d) is ambiguous with respect to Federal disaster 

declarations without an incident date, which satisfies the first step in 

the Chevron framework.”

Petitioners, however, do not argue that they are entitled to a 

60-day postponement with respect to the Nationwide Emergency 

Declaration. Instead, petitioners focus on the Ohio Disaster 

11 Recall that a qualified taxpayer, in addition to one who principally resides 

in a disaster area, is defined to include, inter alia, “any taxpayer whose records 

necessary to meet a deadline for an act described in section 7508(a)(1) are maintained 

in a disaster area.” § 7508A(d)(2)(D). This definition, which appears to sweep in 

records with respect to all of the categories described by section 7508(a)(1), offers 

additional and noteworthy context.
21

Declaration, which determined “that the emergency conditions in the 

State of Ohio resulting from the [COVID-19] pandemic beginning on 

January 20, 2020, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and 

magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the [Stafford 

Act].” The precise question at issue here addresses the context of a 

federal disaster declaration containing an incident date, and we 

conclude that Congress has directly spoken to that precise question. See

Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842.

Petitioners’ situation demonstrates that the Court’s reading of 

section 7508A(d) does not render section 7508A(a) a nullity. Instead, by 

giving effect to every word that Congress used in the statute, it protects 

taxpayers like them with the required “mandatory 60-day extension” 

while the Secretary considers whether and how to exercise his discretion 

under subsection (a). See Lowe v. SEC, 472 U.S. 181, 207 n.53 (1985); 

see also Scalia & Garner, supra, at 174 (describing the “Surplusage 

Canon”). Having concluded that section 7508A(d) unambiguously 

provides for a mandatory, automatic extension of at least 60 days for the 

time to file a petition with the Tax Court, we conclude that deference to 

Treasury Regulation § 301.7508A-1(g)(1) and (2) is unwarranted, and 

we hold Treasury Regulation § 301.7508A-1(g)(1) and (2) invalid to the 

extent it limits the non-pension-related “time-sensitive acts that are 

postponed for the mandatory 60-day postponement period . . . [to] the 

acts determined to be postponed by the Secretary’s exercise of authority 

under section 7508A(a).”12 See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842–43.

Respondent’s regulation, promulgated after the petition in this 

case was filed, cannot change the result dictated by an unambiguous 

statute. See, e.g., Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1485 (2021) 

(“[A]s this Court has long made plain, pleas of administrative 

inconvenience and self-serving regulations never ‘justify departing from 

the statute’s clear text.’” (quoting Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 

2118 (2018)); Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842–43 (“If the intent of Congress is 

clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, 

must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”). 

We do not reach Chevron step 2.

12 The parties do not address the validity of Treasury Regulation § 301.7508A1(g)(1) and (2) as to section 7508A(b) and (d)(4), and their pension-related provisions; 

accordingly, in reaching this holding, neither do we.
22

IV. Conclusion

As in effect when petitioners’ Petition was filed, section 

7508A(d)(1) provided that, in the case of any “qualified taxpayer,” the 

period beginning on the earliest incident date specified in the 

declaration to which the relevant disaster area relates, and ending on 

the date which is 60 days after the latest incident date so specified, 

“shall be disregarded in the same manner as a period specified under 

[section 7508A(a)].” We have determined this language provides for an 

automatic and mandatory postponement period that incorporates all of 

the acts referenced by section 7508A(a), including the filing of a Tax 

Court petition for the redetermination of a deficiency, and interpret it to 

do so. The parties do not dispute that petitioners resided in Ohio at all

relevant times. See § 7508A(d)(2). Petitioners are therefore qualified 

taxpayers entitled to an automatic 60-day postponement period starting 

from January 20, 2020, the earliest incident date specified in the Ohio 

Disaster Declaration, to at least March 20, 2020, to file their Petition.13 

The parties agree that petitioners mailed their petition to the Court on 

March 17, 2020. As petitioners’ Petition was mailed on March 17, 2020, 

their Petition was timely and we have jurisdiction in this case. 

See § 7502. We will therefore deny respondent’s Motion. 

We have considered the parties’ other arguments and, to the 

extent they are not discussed herein, find them to be irrelevant, moot, 

or without merit.

To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order will be issued.

13 See supra notes 7–8. We need not, and therefore do not, express a view on 

what the outer limits of the extension period may be where a declaration omits an 

ending date or is extended. See Stromme v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 213, 218 n.8 

(2012). We note, however, that effective with respect to federally declared disasters 

declared after November 15, 2021, the extension period has been redefined to end “on 

the date which is 60 days after the later of . . . [the] earliest incident date . . . or the 

date such declaration was issued.” See Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 

Pub. L. No. 117-58, § 80501, 135 Stat. 429, 1335 (2021).
23

Reviewed by the Court.

KERRIGAN, FOLEY, BUCH, NEGA, PUGH, ASHFORD, URDA, 

COPELAND, JONES, TORO, GREAVES, and WEILER, JJ., agree with 

this opinion of the Court.

BUCH, J., concurring.

JONES, J., concurring.
24

BUCH, J., concurring: I join the opinion of the Court with only a 

few additional observations. Following the parties’ lead, the opinion of 

the Court reviews the issue before us under the familiar Chevron twostep framework, Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 

U.S. 837 (1984), and correctly concludes under that framework that 

Treasury Regulation § 301.7508A-1(g) is invalid to the extent it limits 

the acts subject to the mandatory postponement period of section 

7508A(d). I note, however, that the continued viability of Chevron is 

under review. See Relentless, Inc. v. Dep’t of Com., 144 S. Ct. 325 (2023)

(granting certiorari for the question of whether the Supreme Court 

should overrule Chevron). And we could reach the same conclusion 

without our heavy reliance on Chevron.

Over a century of precedent supports the unremarkable 

proposition that “[a] regulation to be valid must be reasonable and must 

be consistent with law.” Int’l Ry. Co. v. Davidson, 257 U.S. 506, 514

(1922). Before Chevron, it was clear that “regulations, in order to be 

valid, must be consistent with the statute under which they are 

promulgated.” United States v. Larionoff, 431 U.S. 864, 873 (1977). 

In recent years, the Supreme Court has held regulations to be 

inapplicable with only a fleeting reference to Chevron, see, e.g., Sturgeon 

v. Frost, 139 S. Ct. 1066, 1080 n.3 (2019), or without referencing Chevron

at all, see, e.g., Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1485 (2021). And 

the Supreme Court has specifically stated that it “need not resort to 

Chevron deference . . . [when] Congress has supplied a clear and 

unambiguous answer to the interpretive question at hand.” Pereira v. 

Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2113 (2018).

Regardless of whether the Supreme Court continues to adhere to 

or overrules Chevron, we would reach the same conclusion here. The 

Petition is timely under the mandatory postponement period of 

section 7508A(d), and Treasury Regulation § 301.7508A-1(g) cannot 

change that result.

NEGA, ASHFORD, URDA, COPELAND, TORO, and GREAVES, 

JJ., agree with this concurring opinion.
25

JONES, J., concurring: I join the opinion of the Court in full. 

I write separately to underscore the consistency of the Court’s analysis 

in Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126 (2022), 

and Sanders v. Commissioner, No. 15143-22, 161 T.C. (Nov. 2, 2023), 

with our holding here as well as the overall statutory scheme, 

particularly the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA). 

I. Section 6213(a): Deficiency Jurisdiction

The debate over the nature of the procedural requirement in 

section 6213(a) has intensified in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, 142 S. Ct. 1493 (2022). 

Therein, the Supreme Court held that section 6330(d)(1)—the statute 

that imposes the procedural requirement for filing a petition with the 

Tax Court in a collection due process case—is a nonjurisdictional 

deadline subject to equitable tolling. Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, 142 

S. Ct. at 1501. In doing so, the Supreme Court rejected the 

Commissioner’s argument that the express jurisdictional text of section 

6330(e)(1) suggested that the deadline under section 6330(d)(1) was also 

jurisdictional. Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, 142 S. Ct. at 1499–500. 

The Supreme Court stated that while there were indicia that the 

Commissioner’s interpretation may have been the better one, there was 

not a clear expression from Congress and the arguments highlighted the 

lack of clarity in the statute. Id. at 1499. Because section 6330(d)(1) was 

susceptible to multiple plausible interpretations, there was not a clear 

expression from Congress to imbue jurisdictional consequences. 

Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, 142 S. Ct. at 1498. Thus, the Supreme 

Court held that the statute is not jurisdictional. Id. at 1501.

Section 6213 is arguably similar to section 6330. Accordingly, in 

Hallmark, this Court was asked to consider the jurisdictional nature of 

section 6213(a) in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Boechler. See 

Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 126. We held that the 90-day 

deficiency deadline under section 6213(a) is jurisdictional, and therefore 

not subject to equitable tolling. Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. 

at 166–67. In doing so, the Court principally relied on the priorconstruction canon and the lengthy “history of reenactments of and 

amendments to section 6213(a) [that] demonstrate[d] that Congress’s 

intention [was] to provide an adequate but strict timeframe within 

which a taxpayer may file a deficiency petition in the Tax Court.” Id. 

at 161; see Sanders, 161 T.C., slip op. at 7 (describing the priorconstruction canon as the principal ground of our decision in Hallmark).
26

However, in Culp v. Commissioner, 75 F.4th 196, 205 (3d Cir. 

2023), petition for cert. filed, No. 23-1037 (U.S. Mar. 19, 2024), the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the 90-day deadline to 

petition for redetermination of a tax deficiency is a nonjurisdictional 

deadline subject to equitable tolling. The Third Circuit relied 

significantly on the Supreme Court’s analysis in Boechler. See Culp v. 

Commissioner, 75 F.4th at 200–04 (citing Boechler throughout the 

opinion). Highlighting the similarities between section 6330(d)(1) and 

section 6213(a), the Third Circuit reasoned that “[i]f the § 6330(d)(1) 

deadline in Boechler fell short of being jurisdictional, § 6213(a)’s limit 

must as well.” Culp v. Commissioner, 75 F.4th at 201. The Court stated 

that there is no “clear tie between the deadline and the jurisdictional 

grant,” id. at 201–02 (quoting Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, 142 S. Ct. 

at 1499), and that the remote possibility of a dismissal for untimeliness 

having preclusive effect in a section 7422 refund suit “does little to 

bolster the IRS’s case for the deadline being jurisdictional,” Culp v. 

Commissioner, 75 F.4th at 202; see also § 7459(d).

Thereafter, in Sanders, this Court was tasked with “thoroughly 

reconsider[ing] the problem in the light of the reasoning of the reversing 

appellate court and, if convinced thereby, . . . follow[ing] the higher 

court.” Sanders, 161 T.C., slip op. at 6 (quoting Lawrence v. 

Commissioner, 27 T.C. 713, 716–17 (1957), rev’d on other grounds, 258 

F.2d 562 (9th Cir. 1958)). In doing so, we declined to follow the Third 

Circuit’s interpretation and reaffirmed our decision in Hallmark to 

conclude that section 6213(a) imposes a jurisdictional deadline in all 

cases except those appealable to the Third Circuit. Sanders, 161 T.C., 

slip op. at 7–8.1

Today, the opinion of the Court holds that section 7508A(d) 

provides for an unambiguously self-executing postponement period for 

certain acts set forth in section 7508(a), including the filing of a petition 

for redetermination with the Tax Court. § 7508(a)(1)(C); see op. Ct. p. 18. 

This position is consistent with the Court’s prior decisions in Hallmark 

and Sanders that the deadline under section 6213(a) is jurisdictional, 

because unlike equitable exceptions, statutory exceptions to 

jurisdictional deadlines are of course permissible. Moreover, our prior 

decisions in Hallmark and Sanders are further undergirded by the 

1 The Solicitor General recently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in Culp, 

asking the Supreme Court to review and reverse the Third Circuit’s decision. Petition 

for Writ of Certiorari at 10, Commissioner v. Culp, No. 23-1037 (U.S. Mar. 19, 2024). 

As of this writing, a response is due on April 18, 2024.
27

jurisdictional nature of the AIA, codified under section 7421(a), as 

I explain below.

II. Section 7421(a): The Anti-Injunction Act

The AIA was first enacted in 1867, and it has remained 

continuously in effect and largely unamended since then. Bob Jones 

Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 731 n.6 (1974) (comparing text of Act of 

Mar. 2, 1867, ch. 169, § 10, 14 Stat. 471, 475, with section 7421(a)). Now 

codified in section 7421(a), the statute provides: 

Except as provided in sections 6015(e), 6212(a) and (c), 

6213(a), 6232(c), 6330(e)(1), 6331(i), 6672(c), 6694(c), 

7426(a) and (b)(1), 7429(b), and 7436, no suit for the 

purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any 

tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, 

whether or not such person is the person against whom 

such tax was assessed.

For those who consider legislative history relevant, Warger v. Shauers, 

574 U.S. 40, 48 (2014), the AIA has no recorded legislative history, “but 

its language could scarcely be more explicit,” Bob Jones Univ., 416 U.S. 

at 736. The Supreme Court has interpreted the principal purpose of the 

AIA as the “protection of the Government’s need to assess and collect 

taxes as expeditiously as possible with a minimum of preenforcement 

judicial interference, ‘and to require that the legal right to the disputed 

sums be determined in a suit for refund.’” Id. at 736–37 (quoting Enochs 

v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 7 (1962)). In short, 

“[t]he object of [section] 7421(a) is to withdraw jurisdiction from the 

state and federal courts to entertain suits seeking injunctions 

prohibiting the collection of federal taxes.”2 Williams Packing & 

Navigation Co., 370 U.S. at 5.

Historically, the government has had broad power to collect taxes, 

and the AIA has served as a critical component of the statutory scheme 

2 The AIA does not apply in every situation, but rather the AIA “kicks in when 

the target of a requested injunction is a tax obligation—or stated in the Act’s language, 

when that injunction runs against the ‘collection or assessment of [a] tax.’” CIC Servs., 

LLC v. IRS, 141 S. Ct. 1582, 1590 (2021). Where a suit does not run against a tax at 

all, the AIA has no applicability. Id. at 1593. A suit seeking relief from a separate legal 

mandate that is only backed up by a tax provision is not a dispute over taxes. 

Id.; see also Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius (NFIB), 567 U.S. 519, 543–44 (2012)

(distinguishing between a “tax” and a “penalty”).
28

by limiting the power of taxpayers to seek pre-enforcement judicial 

review. See § 7421(a). “Because of the Anti-Injunction Act, taxes can 

ordinarily be challenged only after they are paid, by suing for a refund,” 

NFIB, 567 U.S. at 543 (citing Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 

U.S. at 7–8), and several courts have characterized the constraints of 

the AIA as jurisdictional, see Bob Jones Univ., 416 U.S. at 749. The AIA 

has “almost literal effect,” thereby depriving courts of jurisdiction over 

any suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of 

any tax. Id. at 737, 749; see also Maze v. IRS, 862 F.3d 1087, 1091 (D.C. 

Cir. 2017); Cohen v. United States, 650 F.3d 717, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2011). 

In Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. at 7, the Supreme Court 

stated that if the judicial exception to the AIA did not apply then “the 

District Court is without jurisdiction, and the complaint must be 

dismissed.” And more recently, at least two courts of appeals have stated 

that the AIA is jurisdictional. See Rocky Branch Timberlands LLC v. 

United States, No. 22-12646, 2023 WL 5746600, at *1 (11th Cir. Sept. 6, 

2023) (“When the Anti-Injunction Act applies, it deprives federal courts 

of jurisdiction.” (quoting United Mine Workers of Am. Combined Benefit 

Fund v. Toffel (In re Walter Energy, Inc.), 911 F.3d 1121, 1136 (11th Cir. 

2018)), cert. denied, No. 23-614, 2024 WL 674784 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2024); 

Optimal Wireless LLC v. IRS, 77 F.4th 1069, 1073 (D.C. Cir. 2023) 

(stating that the AIA “‘deprive[s] the District Court of jurisdiction’ when 

it applies” (alteration in original) (quoting Bob Jones Univ., 416 U.S. 

at 749)).

III. The Relationship Between Sections 6213(a) and 7421(a)

When considering the procedural requirement imposed by section 

6213(a), we must consider the “text, context, and relevant historical 

treatment” of the provision. Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 

154, 166 (2010). While Congress must make a clear statement 

evidencing the procedural requirement’s jurisdictional effect, see id., 

Congress need not “make its clear statement in a single section or in 

statutory provisions enacted at the same time,” Dep’t of Agric. Rural 

Dev. Rural Hous. Serv. v. Kirtz, 144 S. Ct. 457, 466 (2024) (quoting Kimel 

v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 76 (2000)). The relationship between 

sections 6213(a) and 7421(a) provides important context when 

considering the jurisdictional nature of section 6213(a) and reveals 

Congress’s clear expression of the statute’s jurisdictional effect.

To better protect taxpayers’ rights, Congress established what is 

now section 6213(a) as a limited exception to the AIA. Revenue Act of 

1924, ch. 234, § 274, 43 Stat. 253, 297. Thus, 57 years after enacting the 
29

AIA, Congress amended the statutory scheme to create a limited 

exception to the default rule, which permits a taxpayer to sustain a 

challenge to taxes only after the amounts are paid and the taxpayer sues 

for a refund. Compare Act of Mar. 2, 1867, § 10, 14 Stat. at 475, with

Revenue Act of 1924, § 274, 43 Stat. at 297. See also § 7422; Williams 

Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. at 7–8; Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 

159 T.C. at 134. In a deficiency proceeding before this Court, taxpayers 

are afforded the opportunity to seek prepayment de novo review of the 

IRS’s deficiency determination. Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 

134, 165. But review under section 6213 occurs within the broader 

statutory scheme that is framed by the jurisdictional constraints of the 

AIA, codified under section 7421(a). 

Specifically, section 7421(a) provides: “Except as provided in 

section[] . . . 6213(a), . . . no suit for the purpose of restraining the 

assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by 

any person.” And section 6213(a) provides: “Within 90 days, or 150 days 

if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the 

notice of deficiency authorized in section 6212 is mailed . . . , the 

taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of 

the deficiency.” 

If a “taxpayer does not file a petition with the Tax Court within 

the time prescribed in subsection (a) [of section 6213, i.e., within the 90 

or 150-day deadline], the deficiency, notice of which has been mailed to 

the taxpayer, shall be assessed, and shall be paid upon notice and 

demand from the Secretary.” § 6213(c). A taxpayer’s failure to file suit 

within the prescribed period triggers the Government’s duty to assess 

and collect the tax. See id.; see also Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. 

at 161–62 n.29. Thus, any suit subsequently filed with the Tax Court 

(such as one sustained through the application of equitable tolling) 

would restrain the government’s ability to assess a tax that it had the 

right to assess when the taxpayer failed to timely petition the Court.3

Such a suit would therefore exceed the jurisdictional limits imposed by 

section 6213(a) and the AIA and violate the restrictions imposed by the 

AIA. See § 7421(a); Bob Jones Univ., 416 U.S. at 736–37 (citing Williams 

Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. at 7).

3 By contrast, the Court’s holding here does not raise such a concern, because 

section 7508A(d) provides a statutory extension to the section 6213(a) deadline. Suits 

filed timely under section 7508A(d) are therefore filed “as provided in section[] . . .

6213(a)” for purposes of the AIA. § 7421.
30

IV. Conclusion

But for the limited exceptions provided therein, section 7421 

provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or 

collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person.” 

The foregoing demonstrates that the opinion of the Court is consistent 

with the Court’s analysis in Hallmark and Sanders, as well as the 

context of the statutory framework established by the AIA.

BUCH, NEGA, URDA, COPELAND, and TORO, JJ., agree with 

this concurring opinion.

GREAVES, J., agrees with Part I of this concurring opinion.