Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1472_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–1472 
_________________ 

BOECHLER, P.C., PETITIONER v. COMMISSIONER 
OF INTERNAL REVENUE 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 

[April 21, 2022] 

JUSTICE BARRETT delivered the opinion of the Court. 
The  Internal  Revenue  Service  can  seize  taxpayer  prop-
erty to collect tax debts.  Before it does so, however, the tax-
payer is typically entitled to a “collection due process hear-
ing”—a proceeding at which the taxpayer can challenge the 
levy or offer collection alternatives like payment by install-
ment.  That hearing may have a happy (or at least relatively
happy) ending from the taxpayer’s perspective.  But if not, 
the taxpayer has 30 days to petition the Tax Court for re-
view. 

Boechler,  P.C.,  the  petitioner  in  this  case,  missed  the 
deadline by one day.  According to the Commissioner of the
IRS, this tardiness extinguished Boechler’s opportunity to
seek  review  of  the  agency’s  determination.    The  Commis-
sioner  insists  that  the  deadline  is  jurisdictional,  which 
means that the Tax Court has no authority to consider late-
filed petitions.  And even if it is not jurisdictional, the Com-
missioner argues, the Tax Court lacks the power to accept
a tardy filing by applying the doctrine of equitable tolling. 
We disagree with the Commissioner on both scores.