Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1472_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

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

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

No. 20–1472.  Argued January 12, 2022—Decided April 21, 2022 

In 2015, the Internal Revenue Service notified Boechler, P.C., a North 
Dakota law firm, of a discrepancy in its tax filings.  When Boechler did 
not respond, the IRS assessed an “intentional disregard” penalty and 
notified Boechler of its intent to levy Boechler’s property to satisfy the
penalty.  See 26 U. S. C. §§6330(a), 6721(a)(2), (e)(2)(A).  Boechler re-
quested  and  received  a  “collection  due  process  hearing”  before  the 
IRS’s Independent Office of Appeals pursuant to §6330(b), but the Of-
fice sustained the proposed levy.  Under §6330(d)(1), Boechler had 30 
days to petition the Tax Court for review.  Boechler filed its petition 
one day late.  The Tax Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdic-
tion and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that §6330(d)(1)’s 30-
day filing deadline is jurisdictional and thus cannot be equitably tolled. 

Held: Section 6330(d)(1)’s 30-day time limit to file a petition for review 
of a collection due process determination is a nonjurisdictional dead-
line subject to equitable tolling.  Pp. 2–11.

(a) Not all procedural requirements are jurisdictional.  Many simply
instruct “parties [to] take certain procedural steps at certain specified
times” without conditioning a court’s authority to hear the case on com-
pliance with those steps.  Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U. S. 428, 435. 
The  distinction  matters,  as  jurisdictional  requirements  cannot  be
waived  or  forfeited,  must  be  raised  by  courts  sue  sponte,  and  do  not 
allow for equitable exceptions.  Id., at 434–435; Sebelius v. Auburn Re-
gional Medical Center, 568 U. S 145, 154.  As such, a procedural re-
quirement is jurisdictional only if Congress “clearly states” that it is. 
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U. S. 500, 515.  This case therefore turns 
on whether Congress has clearly stated that §6330(d)(1)’s deadline is 
jurisdictional.