Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1472_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

of litigation” but do not bear on a court’s power.  Ibid. 

The  distinction  matters.  Jurisdictional  requirements
cannot  be  waived  or  forfeited,  must  be  raised  by  courts 
sua sponte,  and,  as  relevant  to  this  case,  do  not  allow  for 
equitable exceptions.  Id., at 434–435; Sebelius v. Auburn 
Regional Medical Center, 568 U. S. 145, 154 (2013).  Mind-
ful  of  these  consequences,  we  have  endeavored  “to  bring 
some discipline” to use of the jurisdictional label.  Hender-
son, 562 U. S., at 435. 

To that end, we treat a procedural requirement as juris-
dictional  only  if  Congress  “clearly  states”  that  it  is.    Ar-
baugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U. S. 500, 515 (2006).  Congress
need not “incant magic words,” Auburn, 568 U. S., at 153, 
but  the  “traditional  tools  of  statutory  construction  must
plainly show that Congress imbued a procedural bar with
jurisdictional  consequences,”  United  States  v.  Kwai  Fun 
Wong, 575 U. S. 402, 410 (2015).  This case therefore turns 
on whether Congress has clearly stated that  §6330(d)(1)’s
deadline  to  petition  for  review  of  a  collection  due  process 
determination is jurisdictional.
Section 6330(d)(1) provides: 

“The person may, within 30 days of a determination un-
der  this  section,  petition  the  Tax  Court  for  review  of 
such determination (and the Tax Court shall have ju-
risdiction with respect to such matter).” 

The only jurisdictional language appears in the parenthe-
tical at the end of the sentence.  All agree that the paren-
thetical grants the Tax Court jurisdiction over petitions for
review  of  collection  due  process  determinations.    And  all 
agree that the provision imposes a 30-day deadline to file
those petitions.  The question is whether the provision lim-
its the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to petitions filed within that
timeframe. 

The answer depends on the meaning of “such matter,” the
phrase marking the bounds of the Tax Court’s jurisdiction.