Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1472_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

3 

Syllabus 

§6330(d)(1).  But, if anything, §6330(e)(1)’s clear jurisdictional state-
ment only highlights the lack of such clarity in §6330(d)(1).  Finally, 
the Commissioner insists that §6330(d)(1)’s filing deadline is jurisdic-
tional because it was enacted at a time when Congress was aware of 
lower  court  cases  that  had  held  that  an  analogous  tax  provision, 
§6213(a), is jurisdictional.  Those lower court cases, however, almost 
all predate this Court’s effort to “bring some discipline” to the use of 
the term “jurisdictional.”  Henderson, 562 U. S., at 435.  Pp. 6–8.

(c) Nonjurisdictional  limitations  periods  are  presumptively  subject 
to equitable tolling, Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U. S. 
89,  95–96,  and  nothing  rebuts  the  presumption  here.    Section 
6330(d)(1) does not expressly prohibit equitable tolling, directs its 30-
day time limit at the taxpayer, not the court, and appears in a section
of  the  Tax  Code  that  is  particularly  protective  of  taxpayers,  see  Au-
burn, 568 U. S., at 160. 

The  Commissioner  invokes  United  States  v.  Brockamp,  519  U. S. 
347, which held equitable tolling inapplicable to §6511’s deadline for 
taxpayers to file refund claims, but that case is inapposite.  Brockamp’s 
holding rested on several distinctive features of §6511 that are absent
here.  Unlike §6511’s deadline, §6330(d)(1)’s deadline is not written in 
“emphatic form” or with “detailed” and “technical” language, nor is it 
reiterated multiple times.  Id., at 350–351.  And §6330(d)(1) admits of
a single exception (as opposed to §6511’s six).  See §6330(d)(2).  If any-
thing, these differences underscore the reasons why equitable tolling 
applies to §6330(d)(1).  Despite the Commissioner’s protestations, the
Court is not convinced that allowing §6330(d)(1) to be equitably tolled
will appreciably add to the uncertainty already present in the process. 
Whether  Boechler  is  entitled  to  equitable  tolling  on  the  facts  of  this
case should be determined on remand.  Pp. 8–11. 

967 F. 3d 760, reversed and remanded. 

BARRETT, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.