Big Apple Tompkins: Is the Partnership Tax Court Deadline Jurisdictional?

Read the source decision.

A missed Tax Court deadline can have serious consequences, but not every statutory time limit strips the court of power to hear a case. In Big Apple Tompkins Realty LLC v. Commissioner, the United States Tax Court held that the 90-day deadline in Internal Revenue Code section 6234(a) is not jurisdictional.

The Late BBA Partnership Petition

The IRS mailed a final partnership adjustment to Big Apple Tompkins Realty LLC and its partnership representative under the centralized partnership-audit regime created by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. Big Apple filed its Tax Court petition after the statutory 90-day period and asserted that the notice was not received until the deadline had passed.

The IRS moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court found that the final partnership adjustment had been properly issued and mailed and that the petition was untimely. The remaining question was whether untimeliness deprived the Tax Court of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Why IRC Section 6234(a) Is Nonjurisdictional

Modern Supreme Court decisions require Congress to clearly state when a procedural requirement is jurisdictional. The Tax Court examined the text, context, and history of section 6234(a) and found no clear jurisdictional statement.

The court also declined to treat older cases under the former TEFRA partnership regime as controlling. The BBA created a materially different audit and collection system, and a small number of decisions interpreting an earlier statute did not establish the settled historical construction needed to overcome the clear-statement rule.

Because the 90-day limit is a claims-processing rule rather than a jurisdictional boundary, the court denied the IRS motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

What the Tax Court Did Not Decide: Equitable Tolling

The decision does not make the deadline optional. Big Apple’s petition was still late, and the IRS had mailed the notice properly. The court expressly reserved whether section 6234(a) permits equitable tolling and whether the particular facts would satisfy that doctrine.

Nonjurisdictional treatment can affect waiver, forfeiture, tolling, and the correct form of dismissal, but it does not guarantee that an untimely partnership will obtain merits review.

Practical partnership-audit safeguards

• Keep the partnership’s IRS address, responsible-party information, and representative designation current.
• Monitor mail sent to both the partnership and partnership representative.
• Record the mailing date, delivery history, and statutory petition deadline immediately.
• Do not delay filing while negotiating administratively or investigating delivery problems.
• Preserve envelopes, tracking information, powers of attorney, and internal routing records.

Big Apple Tompkins is a precedential Tax Court opinion about the court’s jurisdiction. Partnerships should still treat the 90-day period as a firm filing deadline unless competent advice establishes a legally available exception.