The Tax Times: Missed Your 90-Day Tax Court Deadline? The 8th Circuit Just Said the Courthouse Door May Still Be Open

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?