TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Boechler, P.C.
Docket Number: 18578-17L
Judge: Buch
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/15/2025
Pages: 13

United States Tax Court Washington, DC 20217 BOECHLER, P.C., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 18578-17L. ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit with this order to petitioner and respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in this case before Judge Ronald L. Buch at St. Paul, Minnesota, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered for the Commissioner. (Signed) Ronald L. Buch Judge Served 07/15/25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bench Opinion by Judge Ronald L. Buch June 12, 2025 Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket No. 18578-17L 3 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion in this case and the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. The oral findings of fact and opinion are made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code and Tax Court Rule 152. Rule references in this opinion are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, in effect at all relevant times. This collection case brought pursuant to section 6330 is on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for factfinding on the question of equitable tolling. The Commissioner issued to Boechler, P.C. (Boechler) a notice of determination sustaining a notice of intent to levy that had been issued to Boechler. The notice of determination informed Boechler that it had 30 days within which to file a petition with the Tax Court. Boechler mailed its petition after that period. Boechler is a sole practitioner law firm with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 limited staff. Its sole lawyer, Jeanette Boechler, is a single mother with a busy law practice and shared responsibility of caring for her elderly mother. The petition was mailed late because she miscalculated the date it was due. A party seeking equitable tolling must establish (1) that it pursued its rights diligently and (2) that extraordinary circumstances outside of its control prevented it from filing on time. Boechler established neither. Boechler provided no evidence as to how it pursued its right diligently, and while Ms. Boechler has many competing obligations, they are not extraordinary. Because Boechler's petition was untimely and Boechler failed to establish the prerequisites for equitable tolling, decision will be entered for the Commissioner. FINDINGS OF FACT Petitioner, Boechler, P.C., is a solo- practitioner law firm with its principal place of business in North Dakota at the time it filed its petition in this case. The firm is principally involved in plaintiff side asbestos litigation. Boechler is named for its sole attorney, Jeanette Boechler. In the late summer of 2017, Boechler's employees included Ms. Boechler, her sister Lisa, and a part-time administrative assistant. Boechler had around 25 active asbestos cases often with 30 or more 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 defendants. 5 In 2017, Ms. Boechler's personal life could be considered hectic. Ms. Boechler was one of the caregivers for her mother who was in her late 90s. Ms. Boechler resided in the same residence as her mother and her sister, Lisa Boechler. She shared caregiving responsibilities with Lisa, as well as another sister who lived in Fargo, North Dakota. Ms. Boechler assisted her mother by making meals, taking her to doctor's appointments, and performing other tasks around the house. Ms. Boechler was also a single mother to her son who graduated high school in 2017. He was about to leave home for the first time to attend college. In the summer of 2017, Boechler was dealing with an ongoing collection dispute. There was a dispute over whether Boechler timely filed information returns for 2012. According to the Commissioner's records, Boechler failed to file timely information returns. As a result, the Commissioner assessed penalties under section 6721. The Commissioner then began collection action. On October 31, 2016, the Commissioner issued a Final Notice of Intent to Levy to Boechler relating to its unpaid liability for information return penalties for 2012. Boechler requested an appeals hearing. At the conclusion of the administrative appeals process, the Commissioner mailed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 Boechler a Notice of Determination dated July 28, 2017, sustaining the Notice of Intent to Levy. The notice of determination stated that to dispute the determination, Boechler "must file a petition with the United Staes Tax Court within a 30-day period beginning the day after the date of this letter." Boechler's counsel mailed a petition with the Tax Court 32 days after the date listed on the notice of determination. Thirty days after July 28, 2017, the date listed on the notice of determination, was August 27, 2017, which fell on a Sunday. According to her testimony at trial, Ms. Boechler calculated August 29th or 30th as the deadline for filing a petition with the Tax Court. The petition in this case was signed by David Clark Thompson, as counsel to Boechler. It was mailed in an envelope showing a return address for David C. Thompson, P.C. and the envelope bore a postmark of August 29, 2017. The Court received the petition on September 1, 2017. During the 30-day filing period, Ms. Boechler had a busy schedule. She had roughly 25 active asbestos cases. Records introduced at trial showed that two of those cases had numerous filings during the filing period, although Ms. Boechler testified that those filings were by the defendants and not by her, her firm, or her clients. Those records also showed that Ms. Boechler had co-counsel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 on some of those cases. Ms. Boechler was also caring for her elderly mother with the help of her two sisters. She also was a single parent to her son, a recent high school graduate. Between August 17th and August 22nd of 2017, Ms. Boechler traveled to New York to assist her son in moving into his college dormitory. While there, she assisted him with his move and attended parent meetings at his new college. On October 4, 2017, the Commissioner filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing the Court lacked jurisdiction because Boechler's petition was untimely. Boechler objected to the motion arguing that the section 6330(d)(1) deadline is not jurisdictional and that equitable tolling warrants extending the deadline. The Court granted the Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari and held that the deadline to petition the Tax Court under section 6330 is not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable tolling. On August 4, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit remanded the case to this Court specifically for factfinding on equitable tolling. A trial was held on June 10, 2025, solely on the issue of whether equitable tolling applies in light of the circumstances surrounding the filing of Boechler's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 petition. Counsel for Boechler appeared, and Ms. Boechler was the sole witness. Boechler argues that equitable tolling is warranted in this case. It argues that its sole attorney, Ms. Boechler, miscalculated the deadline to file the petition and that the miscalculation occurred because of Ms. Boechler's many responsibilities. The Commissioner argued that Ms. Boechler's miscalculation of the deadline is not a sufficient circumstance to warrant equitable tolling for Boechler. The Commissioner argued that, while Ms. Boechler's personal circumstances may have been difficult, they were not uncommon, they were not beyond her control, and they do not rise to the level of extraordinary. I. Jurisdiction OPINION Like all federal courts, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. I.R.C. § 7442; Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). Under section 6330(d)(1), a taxpayer may petition this Court to review a notice of determination concerning a collection action under section 6320 or 6330 within 30 days of such a determination. Equitable tolling "effectively extends an otherwise discrete limitations period set by Congress." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1, 10 (2014). The doctrine "is a traditional feature of American jurisprudence and a background principle against which Congress drafts limitations periods." Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, 596 U.S. 199, 208-209 (2022). Because Congress does not alter this feature lightly, nonjurisdictional deadlines are presumptively subject to equitable tolling. See Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affs., 498 U.S. 89, 95-96 (1990). This presumption can be rebutted if equitable tolling is not consistent with the text of the statute or the statutory scheme. Arellano v. McDonough, 143 S. Ct. 543, 548 (2023); United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 48 (1998). In Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, 596 U.S. at 211, the Supreme Court held that the deadline to petition the Tax Court for review of a collection case under section 6330 was subject to equitable tolling. The Supreme Court reasoned that nothing in the text of section 6330 expressly prohibited equitable tolling and the short 30-day deadline was directed to the taxpayer rather than the court. Id. at 209. The deadline is also in a Code section that is "'unusually protective' of taxpayers" and the litigation is often initiated by pro se litigants. Id. (quoting Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr., 568 U.S. 145, 160 (2013)). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 Because the 30-day deadline in section 6330 is subject to equitable tolling, we must determine whether equitable tolling applies to the facts and circumstances of this case. II. Equitable Tolling To be entitled to equitable tolling, a taxpayer must establish (1) that it pursued its rights diligently and (2) that extraordinary circumstances outside of its control prevented it from filing on time. See Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 577 U.S. 250, 255 (2016) (quoting Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010)). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, to which an appeal in this case would ordinarily lie, has adopted the same test. See I.R.C. § 7482(b); Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 919 F.3d 1033, 1037 (8th Cir. 2019). The first prong of the test requires that a litigant take all reasonable steps to ensure the timeliness of its petition, including engaging with its attorney to ensure a petition is timely filed. See Holland, 560 U.S. at 653; Shempert v. Harwick Chem. Corp., 151 F.3d 793, 798 (8th Cir. 1998). The litigant must show that it "exercised due diligence in pursuing [its] case." Pafe v. Holder, 615 F.3d 967, 968 (8th Cir. 2010). The second prong of the test "is met only where the circumstances that caused a litigant's delay are both 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 extraordinary and beyond its control." Menominee, 577 U.S. at 257; see also Heideman v. PFL, Inc., 904 F.2d 1262, 1266 (8th Cir. 1990); Hill v. John Chezik Imports, 869 F.2d 1122, 1124 (8th Cir. 1989). Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that tolling applies. See Menominee, 577 U.S. at 255; Thompson, 919 F.3d at 1036-37. Equitable tolling is applied sparingly. Irwin, 498 U.S. at 96. Boechler did not allege or establish any facts that indicate it diligently pursued its rights. There is no indication that Boechler followed up with its attorney to ensure the attorney or supporting staff timely filed the petition. Cf. Holland, 560 U.S. at 653-54 (holding that a litigant diligently pursued his claim when he followed up multiple times with his attorney to ensure the petition was timely filed). Ms. Boechler testified that she could not recall if she filed the petition or if she supervised or otherwise provided direction to the person who filed the petition. And given that the petition was filed by counsel, the record is unusually silent as to what direction, if any, was provided by or to counsel to ensure timely filing of the petition. In short, the record is silent as to whether anyone diligently pursued Boechler's rights. Failure to satisfy the first prong is sufficient for us to deny Boechler's claim of equitable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 tolling. See Menominee, 577 U.S. at 256 (holding that failure to meet one element of the equitable tolling test is sufficient for the Court to deny equitable tolling). But Boechler also does not satisfy the second element required to establish equitable tolling: that extraordinary circumstances outside of its control prevented Boechler from filing on time. See id. at 256-57. Boechler argues that extraordinary circumstances exist because its sole attorney, in addition to being a busy lawyer, was also a single mother who cared for her mother. But caselaw on equitable tolling does not support such circumstances warranting equitable tolling. In a similar circumstance, the Second Circuit held that a petitioner who lost track of due dates due to deaths in her family and her father's illness were not sufficient circumstances to warrant equitable tolling. See Gager v. Principi, 300 Fed. App'x 30, 31 (2d. Cir. 2008). While Ms. Boechler's mother was elderly and needed assistance, Ms. Boechler had other family members available to assist, and who in fact assisted, with the caregiving responsibilities. This circumstance does not raise to the level of "extraordinary" so as to warrant equitable tolling. Likewise, an oppressive workload is not an extraordinary circumstance. The Fifth Circuit declined to apply equitable tolling for a petitioner seeking habeas 13 relief when his attorney did not file a habeas petition within the deadline. Lookingbill v. Cockrell, 293 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2002). One of petitioner's arguments was that the habeas counsel was overburdened by a busy docket. Id. at 264. The Court held "we decline to apply equitable tolling just because a lawyer is busy." Id. Ms. Boechler is the namesake and sole attorney at Boechler and controls her own workload. Additionally, she had co-counsel on several of her cases. Her workload was not an extraordinary circumstance outside her control that prevented Boechler from filing on time. Further, miscalculating a deadline is not an extraordinary circumstance outside one's control. Ms. Boechler testified that she miscalculated the deadline, not that any circumstance prevented Boechler from filing a timely petition. An attorney's miscalculation of a deadline is not sufficient to warrant equitable tolling. See Christeson v. Griffith, 860 F.3d 585, 588-89 (8th Cir. 2017); Rues v. Denny, 643 F.3d 618, 621-22 (8th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, Ms. Boechler's miscalculation is not a sufficient circumstance to warrant equitable tolling for Boechler. III. Conclusion Boechler has satisfied neither of the requirements for equitable tolling. It did not establish 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pursued 14 that it diligently pursue its rights and did not establish any extraordinary circumstances outside of its control that prevented it from filing a timely petition. Accordingly, the petition is untimely and equitable tolling does not apply. Decision will be entered for the Commissioner. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:34 a.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25