Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1472_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

We see nothing to rebut the presumption here.  Section 
6330(d)(1) does not expressly prohibit equitable tolling, and 
its short, 30-day time limit is directed at the taxpayer, not
the court.  Cf. id., at 94–96 (holding that a statutory time
limit with the same characteristics is subject to equitable
tolling).  The deadline also appears in a section of the Tax 
Code that is “ ‘ “unusually protective” ’ ” of taxpayers and a
scheme in which “ ‘laymen, unassisted by trained lawyers,’ ” 
often  “ ‘initiate  the  process.’ ”    Auburn,  568  U. S.,  at  160. 
This  context  does  nothing  to  rebut  the  presumption  that
nonjurisdictional deadlines can be equitably tolled. 

To  counter  these  points,  the  Commissioner  invokes 
United States v. Brockamp, 519 U. S. 347 (1997), in which 
we  held  equitable  tolling  inapplicable  to  §6511’s  deadline
for  taxpayers  to  file  refund  claims.    Id.,  at  348.  But 
Brockamp,  which  rested  on  several  distinctive  features  of 
that statutory deadline, is inapposite.  Congress wrote the 
time limit in “unusually emphatic form,” and its “detailed 
technical” language “c[ould not] easily be read as containing 
implicit exceptions.”  Id., at 350.  The statute also “reiter-
ate[d]”  the  deadline  “several  times  in  several  different 
ways.”  Id.,  at  351.  And  the  statute  “explicit[ly]  list[ed]”
numerous (six) exceptions to the deadline.  Id., at 352.  The 
“nature of the underlying subject matter—tax collection—
underscore[d] the linguistic point.”  Ibid.  That was because 
of the “administrative problem” of allowing equitable toll-
ing  when  the  “IRS  processe[d]  more  than  200  million  tax 
returns” and “issue[d] more than 90 million refunds” each 
year.  Ibid. 

Section 6330(d)(1)’s deadline is a far cry from the one in 
Brockamp.  This deadline is not written in “emphatic form” 
or with “detailed” and “technical” language, nor is it reiter-
ated multiple times.  The deadline admits of a single excep-
tion (as opposed to Brockamp’s six), which applies if a tax-
payer is prohibited from filing a petition with the Tax Court 
because  of  a  bankruptcy  proceeding.    §6330(d)(2).  That