Taxpayer argues stroke justifies late Tax Court filing after dismissal for lack of jurisdiction

Karen J. Dorondo v. Commissioner. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. No. 26-944.

A taxpayer is asking the Ninth Circuit to hold that Tax Court deficiency petitions filed after the 90-day deadline can still proceed when equitable tolling applies, particularly in cases involving serious medical impairment.

Holding Sought on Appeal

Karen Dorondo asks the Ninth Circuit to reverse the Tax Court’s dismissal of her late-filed deficiency petition and remand the case so the Tax Court can consider equitable tolling.

Why It Matters

• This appeal directly challenges whether §6213(a)’s 90-day deficiency petition deadline is jurisdictional in the Ninth Circuit. That issue affects thousands of Tax Court cases annually.

• The taxpayer relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s recent jurisdictional jurisprudence, especially Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, which held that another Tax Court filing deadline was not jurisdictional and could be equitably tolled.

• The appeal highlights a growing circuit split in practice, even if not formally acknowledged. The Second, Third, and Sixth Circuits have already concluded that §6213(a) is nonjurisdictional after Boechler. Humans continue discovering that “final deadlines” are apparently less final than advertised. Bureaucracy remains committed to suspense.

• If the Ninth Circuit reverses its earlier precedent in Organic Cannabis Foundation, LLC v. Commissioner, taxpayers in western states could gain broader access to equitable tolling arguments involving illness, disability, natural disasters, or other extraordinary circumstances.

• The taxpayer also frames the Tax Court as a pro-taxpayer forum intended to be accessible and to encourage frequent pro se participation. That framing could influence future procedural disputes involving filing deadlines and access to review.

Key Facts

• Karen Dorondo received a notice of deficiency on March 3, 2025, asserting roughly $1,444 in taxes, penalties, and interest for 2021.

• Dorondo filed a Tax Court petition on June 23, 2025. The filing came 21 days after the standard 90-day deadline under §6213(a).

• She argued the delay resulted from a debilitating stroke suffered in 2020 that materially impaired her ability to manage financial and tax matters.

• Dorondo also asserted that her 2021 return, filed in 2021, showed an overpayment and a refund due, not an unpaid liability.

• The Tax Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction based on Ninth Circuit precedent treating §6213(a)’s filing deadline as jurisdictional and not subject to extension.

Statutory Framework

• §6213(a) generally gives taxpayers 90 days after a notice of deficiency is mailed to petition the Tax Court.

• If a timely petition is filed, the IRS generally cannot assess or collect the disputed deficiency until the Tax Court proceeding concludes.

• Jurisdictional deadlines cannot be waived or equitably tolled.

• Nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules may allow equitable tolling in extraordinary circumstances.

• Recent Supreme Court decisions have narrowed the category of procedural rules treated as jurisdictional absent a clear congressional statement.

Taxpayer argued

• §6213(a)’s filing deadline is not jurisdictional because the statute lacks a clear statement tying the deadline to the Tax Court’s adjudicatory authority.

• Supreme Court precedent after Organic Cannabis fundamentally changed the jurisdictional analysis.

• The Tax Court should consider equitable tolling because Dorondo’s stroke impaired her ability to comply with the filing deadline.

• Congress designed the Tax Court as an accessible prepayment forum for ordinary taxpayers, many of whom proceed without counsel.

• Dismissing the petition would allow the IRS to retain funds despite the taxpayer allegedly being entitled to a refund.

Government argued

• Existing Ninth Circuit precedent in Organic Cannabis treats §6213(a)’s deadline as jurisdictional.

• The Tax Court lacks authority to extend the filing period.

• Untimely petitions must therefore be dismissed regardless of equitable considerations.

Court Proceedings and Legal Context

The appeal spends substantial time attacking Organic Cannabis. The taxpayer argues that the case cannot survive after Boechler and subsequent Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that filing deadlines are presumptively nonjurisdictional absent explicit congressional language.

The brief also cites post-Boechler appellate decisions from the Second, Third, and Sixth Circuits that conclude that §6213(a) is not jurisdictional and can be equitably tolled.

The taxpayer repeatedly emphasizes that Congress explicitly used jurisdictional language elsewhere in the Internal Revenue Code, but not in the sentence establishing the 90-day filing deadline itself.

A central practical argument involves access to justice. The brief notes that most Tax Court litigants are pro se and many disputes involve relatively small dollar amounts. Requiring full payment before judicial review can effectively deny lower-income taxpayers access to review.

The taxpayer also distinguishes older Supreme Court cases where filing deadlines were treated as jurisdictional because of long historical treatment by the Supreme Court itself. The brief argues that no comparable Supreme Court authority exists for §6213(a).

Court’s Reasoning Requested by Taxpayer

• Filing deadlines are generally treated as claim-processing rules rather than jurisdictional bars.

• A procedural requirement becomes jurisdictional only if Congress clearly states that result.

• §6213(a)’s text discusses what taxpayers “may” do within 90 days, but does not expressly condition Tax Court jurisdiction on timely filing.

• Other Internal Revenue Code provisions expressly address Tax Court jurisdiction, suggesting Congress knew how to impose jurisdictional limits when it intended to do so.

• The Supreme Court’s Boechler analysis regarding another Tax Court filing deadline applies equally to §6213(a).

• Equitable tolling is presumptively available unless Congress clearly forecloses it.

• Severe medical impairment could justify tolling if the Tax Court is permitted to consider the issue on remand.

Result

The taxpayer asks the Ninth Circuit to reverse the Tax Court’s dismissal and remand for consideration of equitable tolling.

The Takeaway

This appeal matters far beyond a $1,400 deficiency dispute. It targets one of the foundational procedural rules governing access to the Tax Court.

If the Ninth Circuit abandons Organic Cannabis, taxpayers within the circuit could gain a meaningful path to preserve late deficiency petitions in extraordinary circumstances. Tax procedure lawyers have spent decades treating the 90-day deadline like a sacred relic carved into granite tablets. The Supreme Court’s recent cases keep showing that many of those assumptions were built more on habit than on statutory text. Human legal systems adore certainty right up until appellate courts reread the statute.

List of Citations

• Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner
  Supreme Court decision holding that another Tax Court filing deadline was nonjurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling.

• Organic Cannabis Foundation, LLC v. Commissioner
  Existing Ninth Circuit precedent treating §6213(a)’s deadline as jurisdictional.

• Buller v. Commissioner
  Second Circuit decision concluding §6213(a) is nonjurisdictional after Boechler.

• Culp v. Commissioner
  Third Circuit decision concluding equitable tolling applies to §6213(a).

• Oquendo v. Commissioner
  Sixth Circuit decision rejecting jurisdictional treatment of §6213(a).

• §6213(a)
  Statutory provision establishing the 90-day Tax Court deficiency petition deadline.

• §6214(a)
  Provision granting the Tax Court jurisdiction to redetermine deficiencies.

• §6512(b)
  Provision granting Tax Court jurisdiction over overpayment determinations and refunds.