Today we welcome back retired blogger, Carl Smith. Carl was the architect of the argument that time periods for filing a petition in Tax Court are not jurisdictional based on his reading of Supreme Court cases coming out in other areas of the law. He worked with the Tax Clinic at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School to assist in writing briefs and preparing the students to make oral arguments to Circuit courts. He worked to identify cases in which we should make the arguments, including the first case it entered (as an amicus), Guralnik v. Commissioner, in which the Tax Clinic made the argument in a case involving a snow day and the Tax Court rejected our argument 17-0. He also worked with attorneys around the country who had these cases helping them craft their arguments and helping the Harvard students write amicus briefs. Today’s post is Carl recognizing the village, but I want to recognize him for creating the legal designs that ultimately led to the Supreme Court’s decision. Keith
In Boechler v. Commissioner, the Supreme Court held that the filing deadline for a Tax Court Collection Due Process petition is not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable tolling. This victory was about 15 years in the making, and it took a village of almost all pro bono attorneys and clinicians to make it happen. I wanted to send out thanks to those who helped along the way:
Jason Grimes – the young pro bono Florida attorney who first made the argument, in a district court suit brought by the IRS to collect taxes, that one of the taxpayers should be entitled to raise section 6015 innocent spouse relief as a defense. The district court (I think, erroneously) concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider relief under section 6015. Jason persuaded the district court to equitably toll the section 6015(e) filing deadline so that the taxpayer could belatedly file a Tax Court petition. United States v. Pollock, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98153 (S.D. Fla. 2007). When Jason filed the Tax Court petition on behalf of Mrs. Pollock, he argued that the recent Supreme Court non-tax case law making filing deadlines usually not jurisdictional required the Tax Court to accept the case. The Tax Court rejected accepting the case, holding the deadline jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling. Pollock v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 21 (2009). I became aware of the argument that Tax Court filing deadlines might no longer be jurisdictional when I read the Pollock opinion and the recent Supreme Court non-tax opinions concerning jurisdiction, and I made the same argument Jason did (also unsuccessfully) for a client of the Cardozo Tax Clinic in Gormeley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-252. (By the way, appeals were docketed from both the Pollock and Gormeley opinions, but the taxpayer appeals were dropped before opinion after the IRS stopped pursuing Mrs. Pollock for collection and the IRS belatedly discovered (at my insistence that they look) that they had never sent Ms. Gormeley the notice of deficiency that underlay her section 6015 relief request.)
Keith Fogg – who, as the Director of the Tax Clinic at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, agreed to lend his clinic’s name and assistance to an amicus brief that he and I filed in the Tax Court case of Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 230 (2016), arguing that the section 6330(d)(1) deadline to file a Tax Court Collection Due Process (CDP) petition is not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable tolling under the recent Supreme Court non-tax case law on jurisdiction and equitable tolling. We lost that argument in the case by a vote of 17 judges to zero, which might have deterred Keith from ever making the argument again, but he persisted in lending the clinic’s name and students to many later cases in which the clinic argued (either as counsel for taxpayers or as amicus) that the Tax Court filing deadlines for innocent spouse, CDP, deficiency, and whistleblower awards petitions are not jurisdictional and are subject to equitable tolling. In addition to Boechler v. Commissioner, 967 F.3d 760 (8th Cir. 2020) (CDP), the Harvard clinic was involved in Organic Cannabis Foundation LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2020) (deficiency); Myers v. Commissioner, 928 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2019) (whistleblower award); Nauflett v. Commissioner, 892 F.3d 649 (4th Cir. 2018) (innocent spouse); Cunningham v. Commissioner, 716 Fed. Appx. 182 (4th Cir. 2018) (CDP); Duggan v. Commissioner, 879 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2018) (CDP); Matuszak v. Commissioner, 862 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2017) (innocent spouse); and Rubel v. Commissioner, 856 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2017) (innocent spouse).
Amy Feinberg – a student of Keith’s in the Tax Clinic who did oral argument to the 4th Cir. in Cunningham while a Harvard Law student, and then, while at Latham & Watkins, persuaded her firm to allow her to do the oral argument in the 8th Cir. in Boechler pro bono. Amy also persuaded her firm to do the Supreme Court Boechler case pro bono. Amy also helped draft the taxpayer’s Supreme Court filings. In addition to Amy, Harvard Law Students Jeff Zink, now an associate with Covington and Burling in D.C., argued the Matuszak case before the Second Circuit and Allison Bray, now an associate with Kirkland and Ellis in San Francisco, argued the Nauflett case before the Fourth Circuit. Numerous students at the Tax Clinic assisted in writing amicus briefs over the six years since the Tax Clinic began pursuing this issue. Jonathan Blake and Nathan Raab worked on the amicus brief in Boechler following a long line of prior clinic students.
Melissa Sherry – the Latham attorney who took on the Supreme Court Boechler case pro bono and did one of the most outstanding oral arguments I have ever heard and who did briefing in the Supreme Court case that improved on several of the arguments that Keith and I had first made in Guralnik.
Carolyn Flynn – a Latham attorney who helped write the Supreme Court briefs in Boechler.
Joseph DiRuzzo – who, at my suggestion, entered a pro bono appearance for the petitioner in Myers v. Commissioner, where Joe successfully argued that the whistleblower award filing deadline at section 7623(b)(4) is not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable tolling. Myers created the Circuit split that caused the Supreme Court to grant review in Boechler, since there is no practical difference between the language of sections 6330(d)(1) and 7623(b)(4).
David Clark Thompson – who represented the taxpayer in Boechler in the Tax Court and 8th Cir. and had the wisdom to make the argument that the Harvard clinic had made in Duggan to the 9th Cir.
Elizabeth Maresca – Director of the tax clinic at Fordham, who decided to pursue the argument that the CDP petition filing deadline is not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable tolling in the factually-appealing case of Castillo v. Commissioner (currently pending in the 2d Cir., waiting the Boechler ruling) – a case much cited in the briefs in the Supreme Court in Boechler.
Nina Olson – who, as IRS National Taxpayer Advocate, argued that Congress should clarify that all Tax Court petition filing deadlines are not jurisdictional and are subject to equitable tolling. Later, as the Director of the Center for Taxpayer Rights, Nina also lent her organization’s name to briefs drafted by Keith, me, and students in the Harvard clinic in Boechler.
Frank Agostino – who, acting pro bono, raised the Boechler argument in a late-filed CDP case apparently appealable to the D.C. Circuit, Amanasu Environment Crop. v. Commissioner, T.C. Docket No. 5192-20L, even before the Supreme Court granted cert. in Boechler. Frank was hoping not only to benefit the taxpayer, but create a direct Circuit split with the 8th Cir. Opinion in Boechler over the section 6330(d)(1) filing deadline – on the assumption that the D.C. Circuit panel would feel compelled to follow a prior panel’s Myers opinion involving the whistleblower award filing deadline. To this end, in April 2021, Frank also successfully made a motion to remove the case’s original small tax case designation. However, the Tax Court deferred deciding the pending motion to dismiss in the case until after the Boechler opinion was issued.
Lavar Taylor and team at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (Sam Auld, Peter Bruland, Shay Dvoretzky and Emily Kennedy) – who wrote excellent amicus briefs in support of Boechler.