For as long as most of us
have been practicing, the rule was simple and merciless: you have 90 days from
the mailing date on your IRS Notice of Deficiency to file a petition with the
U.S. Tax Court. Miss it by one day and the Tax Court would tell you it had no
power to hear your case, no excuses, no exceptions, no matter how sympathetic
your story.
On August 11, 2026, the
Eighth Circuit in Maniktala v. Commissioner, No. 25-1366 (8th Cir. Aug. 11, 2026) told the IRS that is no longer the law, at least in its part of
the country.
What Happened to the Maniktalas
Nate and Jaya Maniktala
filed joint returns for 2018 and 2019. Nate was a shareholder in BranchPattern,
Inc., an S corporation in the building-design business, and the couple claimed
research and development credits under Section 41 that flowed through from the
company. The IRS examined the credits, decided BPI did not qualify, and mailed
the Maniktalas a Notice of Deficiency on December
20, 2023. The notice listed March
19, 2024 as the "last day to file petition with US tax court."
Here is the problem: the
Maniktalas did not actually receive the notice until July 9, 2024 — roughly four months after the deadline printed on it
had already expired. They filed their Tax Court petition ten days later, on July 19, 2024.
The Tax Court dismissed the
case. Not on the merits of the R&D credits, and not because the taxpayers
had been careless, but because it concluded it had no jurisdiction to even look
at a late petition.
The Eighth Circuit reversed.
The Holding, in Plain English
Writing for a panel that
included Judges Gruender and Erickson, Circuit Judge Kelly held two things:
1. The 90-day deadline in Section 6213(a) is not
"jurisdictional." It is what courts call a claim-processing rule — a housekeeping
deadline aimed at the taxpayer, not a limit on the Tax Court's power.
2. Because it is not jurisdictional, the deadline can be equitably
tolled — meaning
a court can excuse a late filing where the taxpayer was diligent but something
extraordinary got in the way.
The court's line is worth
quoting: "Filing deadlines . . . are quintessential claim-processing
rules. Today we hold the filing deadline in § 6213(a) is no exception."
Why does the distinction
matter so much? A jurisdictional defect cannot be waived, cannot be excused,
and must be raised by the court on its own. A claim-processing deadline can be
forfeited by the government, and it can be tolled.
The Reasoning: Read the Statute Carefully
The Eighth Circuit's
analysis follows the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Boechler, P.C. v.
Commissioner, which held that a similar Tax Court deadline in collection due
process cases was not jurisdictional. Congress must "clearly state"
that a deadline strips a court of power. Plausible is not enough. Even
"better than the alternative" is not enough. It has to be clear.
Look at what Section 6213(a)
actually says. The deadline sentence is addressed to the taxpayer: "the taxpayer may
file a petition." The only sentence in the subsection that mentions
jurisdiction is addressed to the court,
and it takes away only two specific powers: "The Tax Court shall have no
jurisdiction to enjoin any action or proceeding or order any refund . . .
unless a timely petition . . . has been filed."
That structure was fatal to
the government's position. Congress plainly knew how to limit the Tax Court's
jurisdiction — it did exactly that for injunctions and refunds. It did not do
so for the court's core authority to hear an untimely petition.
The Eighth Circuit also had
to get around its own 1977 precedent, Andrews
v. Commissioner, which had flatly declared the deadline jurisdictional. The
panel explained that Andrews
contained no actual analysis, and that intervening Supreme Court decisions have
undermined that kind of unexplained label. As the Supreme Court has warned,
courts "have more than occasionally misused the term
'jurisdictional.'"
The Government's Best Argument — and Why It Lost
The Commissioner made a
clever, taxpayer-protective argument. Under Section 7459(d), when the Tax Court
dismisses a deficiency petition for any reason other than lack of jurisdiction, the dismissal counts as a decision
that the deficiency is exactly what the IRS said it was. That could trigger res
judicata and destroy the taxpayer's fallback option of paying the tax and suing
for a refund in district court. In other words, the IRS argued that calling the
deadline "jurisdictional" actually helps taxpayers.
The court was unmoved. That
scenario requires a long chain of events, late petition, dismissal, payment of
the deficiency, a refund claim, a denial, and then a refund suit. A
"perhaps-unanticipated impact on a limited number of taxpayers" is not
the clear congressional statement the law requires.
The Commissioner also argued
from history and from the architecture of the tax collection system, contending
that Section 6213(a) is itself the implicit source of the Tax Court's
deficiency jurisdiction. The panel acknowledged these arguments were serious
and not without merit, but again, serious is not the same as clear.
Equitable Tolling Is Available — Not Automatic
Once the deadline was
declared nonjurisdictional, a presumption in favor of equitable tolling kicked
in under Irwin v. Department of Veterans
Affairs. The government can rebut that presumption only by showing Congress
affirmatively intended to bar tolling.
Section 6213(a) does not do
that. It contains no express prohibition on tolling, it is directed at the
taxpayer rather than the court, it is not written in dense technical terms, and
it is not surrounded by an exhaustive list of statutory exceptions. That last
point distinguishes the refund limitations period in Section 6511, which the
Supreme Court held untollable in United
States v. Brockamp precisely because it was so elaborately and repetitively
drafted.
Important caveat: the Maniktalas have not won yet. The
Eighth Circuit sent the case back to the Tax Court to decide in the first
instance whether they qualify for tolling. The taxpayer bears the burden of
showing both reasonable diligence and an extraordinary circumstance. Filing ten
days after actually receiving the notice is strong evidence of diligence, but
the Tax Court gets the first word.
Where the Circuits Now Stand — and Why Florida
Clients Should Not Celebrate Yet
This is where it gets
genuinely messy, and where geography drives strategy.
|
Circuit
|
Deadline jurisdictional?
|
Equitable tolling available?
|
|
2nd — Buller v. Commissioner, 160 F.4th
266 (2025)
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
3rd — Culp v. Commissioner, 75 F.4th 196 (2023)
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
6th — Oquendo v. Commissioner, 148 F.4th
820 (2025)
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
8th — Maniktala (2026)
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
1st — Kyick Holdings v. Commissioner (Aug.
2026)
|
No
|
No
|
|
7th — Tilden v. Commissioner, 846 F.3d
882 (2017)
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
9th — Organic Cannabis Foundation, 962 F.3d
1082 (2020)
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
11th — Pugsley (1984); Allen (unpublished, post-Boechler)
|
Yes
|
No
|
Two features of this
landscape deserve attention.
First, the First Circuit has opened a brand-new fault line. Just days
after Maniktala, the First Circuit
agreed the deadline is nonjurisdictional but held it is nevertheless a mandatory claim-processing rule that is
completely immune from equitable tolling, relying on the Supreme Court's 2026
decision in Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel.
So the question is no longer just "jurisdictional or not" — it is now
a two-step inquiry, and a taxpayer can win step one and still lose everything
at step two. That development materially raises the odds of Supreme Court
review, which the Court has so far declined to grant.
Second — and this matters
directly for our Miami clients — the
Eleventh Circuit is still in the "jurisdictional" column. It has
pre-Boechler published precedent
treating the deadline as jurisdictional, and in an unpublished post-Boechler decision it concluded Boechler did not disturb that precedent.
Under the Golsen doctrine, the Tax Court follows the law of the circuit where
the case would be appealable.
For A Florida-Based Taxpayer, That Means A Late Petition Remains, For Now, A Fatal Error.
Practical Takeaways
Do not treat this as permission to relax. The 90-day rule (150 days
if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States) remains the
only reliable plan. Equitable tolling is an emergency airbag, not a driving
strategy, and the taxpayer's burden is heavy.
Docket from the mailing date, not the delivery date. The Maniktalas' whole
ordeal traces to a notice mailed in December that surfaced in July. Calendar
every notice the moment it appears, and confirm the "last day to
file" stated on the notice.
Keep the envelope, the certified mail tracking, and a record of
when you actually received the notice. In a tolling case, proof of the delivery failure and proof of
prompt action afterward are the entire ballgame.
Watch your address of record. The IRS is entitled to mail the notice to the
address on your most recently filed return. Non-resident clients, clients who
have moved, clients using a former CPA's address, and foreign-owned entities
are especially exposed. Filing Form 8822 or 8822-B is unglamorous and
occasionally decisive.
Know your circuit before you plan. In the Second, Third,
Sixth, and Eighth Circuits, a late petition is now worth fighting. In the
First, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, it currently is not. If you have
a client with a potential venue argument, that analysis just became far more valuable.
Preserve the alternative path. Even where tolling is unavailable, the
pay-and-sue-for-refund route in district court or the Court of Federal Claims
may still exist — and note that the government itself argued in Maniktala that a nonjurisdictional
dismissal could jeopardize that route. Preserve both options deliberately
rather than by accident.
Received a
Notice of Deficiency?
Or Just Discovered One That Has Been Sitting In The Wrong Mailbox For Months The Time To Act Is Immediately,
Not After The 90 Days Have Run.
Contact the Tax Lawyers at
Marini & Associates, P.A.
If
Sources:
- Eighth Circuit opinion in Maniktala
v. Commissioner, No. 25-1366 (Aug. 11, 2026),
- https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/08/251366P.pdf; Ed Zollars, CPA,
"Equitable Tolling of Tax Court Filing Deadlines," Current Federal
Tax Developments (Aug. 11, 2026),
- https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2026/8/11/equitable-tolling-of-tax-court-filing-deadlines-the-eighth-circuit-joins-the-post-boechler-consensus-in-maniktala-v-commissioner; "Mandatory Limits and
the Equitable Tolling Deficit: Analyzing Tax Court Filing Deadlines After Kyick
Holdings v. Commissioner," Current Federal Tax Developments (Aug. 18,
2026),
- https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2026/8/18/mandatory-limits-and-the-equitable-tolling-deficit-analyzing-tax-court-filing-deadlines-after-kyick-holdings-v-commissioner; Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP, "August 17 Tax Policy Update," https://www.sullcrom.com/insights/memo/2026/August/August-17-Tax-Policy-Update; Congressional Research
Service, LSB11038,
- https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11038.web.html; "Taxation – Notice –
Equitable tolling," Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (Aug. 19, 2026), https://masslawyersweekly.com/2026/08/19/taxation-notice-equitable-tolling/
