Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms: Successive Reconsideration Motions Do Not Extend the 90-Day Appeal Period from Tax Court Decisions; Actual Receipt of a Deficiency Notice Obviates Proof of Certified Mailing

Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms: Successive Reconsideration Motions Do Not Extend the 90-Day Appeal Period from Tax Court Decisions; Actual Receipt of a Deficiency Notice Obviates Proof of Certified Mailing

Introduction

In Joseph Belcik v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, consolidated appellate Nos. 25-10099 and 25-10100, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (per curiam; non-argument calendar; not for publication) addressed two recurring procedural pitfalls in Tax Court litigation and subsequent appeals. First, it held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Tax Court’s September 12, 2024 decision assessing tax deficiencies, additions to tax, and a penalty because the notice of appeal was untimely under 26 U.S.C. § 7483 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 13. Second, it affirmed the Tax Court’s denial of the taxpayer’s second motion for reconsideration because the motion merely rehashed arguments previously rejected, which is improper under the standards governing reconsideration.

The case arises from IRS notices of deficiency covering tax years 2008–2016 and 2017–2018. Proceeding pro se, Mr. Belcik persistently challenged Tax Court jurisdiction based on his contention that the IRS had not proven the notices were sent by certified or registered mail. The Tax Court rejected the argument at multiple junctures, proceeded to trial, and entered a decision against him. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the challenge to that underlying liability decision and affirmed the denial of reconsideration.

The opinion clarifies two important points: (1) successive post-judgment motions in Tax Court do not continually toll the 90-day deadline to appeal to the court of appeals; and (2) where a taxpayer actually receives a notice of deficiency and timely petitions the Tax Court, the Commissioner need not additionally prove the manner of mailing as certified or registered for the Tax Court to proceed—particularly at the reconsideration stage where the argument is simply repeated.

Summary of the Opinion

  • Jurisdictional dismissal: The court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review the September 12, 2024 Tax Court decision because the notice of appeal filed on January 3, 2025 was not within the 90-day window measured from the September 27, 2024 order denying the taxpayer’s (first) timely motion to vacate. See 26 U.S.C. § 7483; Fed. R. App. P. 13(a)(1)(A), (B).
  • No tolling from successive motions: The taxpayer’s later “second motion for reconsideration,” denied on October 7, 2024, did not restart or further toll the appeal clock. Successive post-judgment motions do not extend the time to appeal. See Dixie Sand & Gravel Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority and Eleventh Circuit precedent.
  • Limited scope of review: Although the appeal was untimely as to the liability decision, the notice of appeal was timely as to the order denying the second reconsideration motion, giving the Eleventh Circuit jurisdiction to review that discrete ruling.
  • Affirmance on reconsideration: The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration because the taxpayer simply repeated the same certified-mailing/jurisdiction argument previously rejected many times; motions for reconsideration cannot be used to re-litigate settled issues.
  • Additional Tax Court observations: The record evidenced the taxpayer’s receipt of the deficiency notices (timely petitions were filed), and the Commissioner produced USPS certified tracking information in any event. The Tax Court also imposed a $2,000 penalty for baseless and frivolous filings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  • 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1) and § 7483:
    Section 7482(a)(1) vests courts of appeals with jurisdiction over Tax Court decisions in the same manner as bench trials in district court. Section 7483 sets a statutory 90-day time limit to file a notice of appeal from a Tax Court decision. The panel’s jurisdictional analysis turns on § 7483, underscoring that timeliness is an absolute gatekeeper for appellate review of Tax Court decisions.
  • Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(a)(1)(A)–(B):
    Rule 13 specifically governs appeals from the Tax Court. Subpart (B) provides that a timely motion to vacate or revise a Tax Court decision resets the appeal clock, but only once. The Eleventh Circuit applied Rule 13 to hold that the initial, timely motion to vacate tolled the time until it was denied on September 27, 2024—but the subsequent reconsideration motion did not reset the deadline again.
  • Roberts v. Commissioner, 175 F.3d 889 (11th Cir. 1999):
    Roberts establishes that an untimely notice of appeal from a Tax Court decision deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction, necessitating dismissal. The panel followed Roberts to dismiss the challenge to the September 12, 2024 Tax Court decision as untimely.
  • Dixie Sand & Gravel Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 631 F.2d 73 (5th Cir. 1980), adopted in the Eleventh Circuit by Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc):
    Dixie Sand holds that successive post-judgment motions do not perpetually toll the time for appeal. The panel relies on this principle to reject the taxpayer’s argument that his second reconsideration motion extended the appellate deadline.
  • Sloan v. Drummond Co., 102 F.4th 1169 (11th Cir. 2024):
    Cited for the standard of review on subject-matter jurisdiction (de novo) and to support the general principle that successive motions do not keep tolling the clock. While Sloan is not a tax case, its procedural teachings apply across civil appeals, including those from the Tax Court by virtue of § 7482 and Rule 13.
  • Sarma v. Commissioner, 45 F.4th 1312 (11th Cir. 2022) and Davenport Recycling Associates v. Commissioner, 220 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2000):
    These cases provide the abuse-of-discretion framework for reviewing Tax Court orders denying reconsideration. The panel quotes Davenport’s “definite and firm conviction” language to frame the narrowness of review.
  • Tax Court Rule 161; Finnegan v. Commissioner, 926 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2019):
    Rule 161 authorizes motions for reconsideration in the Tax Court. Finnegan explains that, in evaluating such motions, courts look to the standards under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)—whether to correct clear error of law or fact, consider newly discovered evidence, or prevent manifest injustice.
  • Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757 (11th Cir. 2005) and Gonzalez-Arroyo v. Doctors’ Center Hospital Bayamon, Inc., 54 F.4th 7 (1st Cir. 2022):
    These decisions reinforce that reconsideration is not a vehicle to relitigate matters already decided. The panel applied this principle in affirming the Tax Court’s denial of the taxpayer’s second reconsideration motion, which was a repetition of prior arguments.

Legal Reasoning

The Eleventh Circuit’s analysis proceeded in two steps: jurisdiction first, merits second (and narrowly).

  1. Jurisdiction and timeliness under § 7483 and Rule 13:
    • On September 12, 2024, the Tax Court entered its decision computing liabilities consistent with its memorandum opinion.
    • On September 24, 2024, the taxpayer filed a timely motion to vacate, which tolled the appeal period. See Fed. R. App. P. 13(a)(1)(B).
    • On September 27, 2024, the Tax Court denied the motion to vacate. The 90-day clock to appeal the underlying decision therefore ran from September 27, 2024 to December 26, 2024.
    • The taxpayer filed a second motion for reconsideration on October 3, 2024; it was denied on October 7, 2024. Relying on Dixie Sand and related Eleventh Circuit authority, the court held that this successive motion did not toll or restart the appeal period for the underlying decision.
    • Because the notice of appeal was filed on January 3, 2025, it was untimely as to the September 12, 2024 decision (as measured from the September 27 order denying the first post-judgment motion). Following Roberts, the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal from the liability decision.
    • However, the January 3, 2025 notice of appeal was timely with respect to the October 7, 2024 order denying the second reconsideration motion, giving the court jurisdiction over that discrete ruling.
  2. Denial of the second reconsideration motion (abuse-of-discretion review):
    • The taxpayer’s second motion for reconsideration reiterated the same jurisdictional claim he had raised repeatedly: the IRS purportedly failed to prove that the notices of deficiency were sent by certified or registered mail, and therefore the Tax Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
    • The Tax Court had already rejected that contention multiple times—at the pleading stage, on pretrial motions, after trial in its memorandum opinion, and again in denying the initial motion to vacate—finding that the taxpayer’s timely petitions evidenced his receipt of the notices. It further noted that, where a taxpayer receives a notice and timely petitions, the Commissioner need not additionally prove proper mailing to sustain Tax Court proceedings; and, in any event, the Commissioner produced USPS certified tracking for the notices.
    • Applying Rule 161 and the 59(e)/60(b) framework recognized in Finnegan, the Eleventh Circuit held that the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration because the motion simply regurgitated arguments already considered and rejected. Under Michael Linet and Gonzalez-Arroyo, reconsideration cannot be used to reargue settled points absent new law, new evidence, or clear error—which were not shown.

Impact

Although unpublished, the decision reinforces several practical and doctrinal points that will affect litigants in Tax Court matters and appellate practice in the Eleventh Circuit:

  • Strict appellate deadlines from the Tax Court: The 90-day limit under § 7483, as implemented through Rule 13, demands precision. A single, timely post-judgment motion (to vacate or revise) resets the clock; successive motions do not. Lawyers and pro se litigants should docket the new deadline when the first post-judgment motion is resolved and file the notice of appeal within that window.
  • No “endless tolling” via serial reconsideration: Attempting to extend the appeal period by filing back-to-back reconsideration motions is ineffective. The Eleventh Circuit will dismiss late appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
  • Actual receipt of deficiency notices matters: When the record shows the taxpayer actually received the notice of deficiency and timely petitioned the Tax Court, disputes over certified/registered mailing lose traction—particularly at the reconsideration stage—because the purpose of the mailing requirement (notice and opportunity to petition) has been satisfied, and the Commissioner may also have evidence of certified mailing.
  • Reconsideration is exceptional, not iterative: Parties should not expect the Tax Court to revisit issues absent new law, new facts, or correction of clear error. Serial motions repeating the same arguments risk sanctions for frivolous filings, as reflected by the Tax Court’s $2,000 penalty here.
  • Appellate focus is narrowed by jurisdictional posture: Where the appeal from the underlying decision is untimely, the appellate court can only review the discrete order timely appealed (here, the denial of the second reconsideration motion). That inherently limits the scope of review and the possibility of relief.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Notice of deficiency: The IRS’s formal determination that a taxpayer owes additional tax for a given year. It triggers the taxpayer’s right to petition the U.S. Tax Court within a fixed time. The tax laws authorize mailing such notices by certified or registered mail.
  • Certified or registered mail: Mailing methods that provide the sender with evidence of mailing and, often, delivery confirmation. They exist to document the notice process. If a taxpayer actually receives the notice in time to petition, disputes over the mailing method typically carry less weight in jurisdictional terms.
  • Timely petition: Filing a petition in the Tax Court by the statutory deadline (usually 90 days from the notice of deficiency). Timely filing establishes the Tax Court’s ability to hear the case, even if there were quibbles about address or mailing method, because the taxpayer received actual notice.
  • Tolling the appeal period: “Tolling” pauses or resets the deadline to appeal. From Tax Court decisions, a single timely motion to vacate or revise resets the clock until that motion is resolved. Later, successive motions do not keep resetting the deadline.
  • Successive post-judgment motions: Filing more than one reconsideration or similar motion after judgment. Courts treat these with skepticism; they do not extend appellate deadlines and are often denied if they merely repeat prior arguments.
  • Abuse of discretion: A highly deferential standard of review. An appellate court will disturb a denial of reconsideration only if it has a “definite and firm conviction” that the lower court made a clear error of judgment—something more than mere disagreement.
  • Per curiam; non-argument calendar; not for publication: “Per curiam” denotes an unsigned decision by the panel. “Non-argument calendar” means the case was decided without oral argument. “Not for publication” indicates the opinion is non-precedential, though it still illuminates how the court applies established rules.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Belcik v. Commissioner concretes two core procedural messages for Tax Court litigants in this circuit. First, the 90-day appellate deadline in 26 U.S.C. § 7483 is unforgiving: only the initial, timely post-judgment motion (to vacate or revise) will reset the deadline; later, successive motions will not. Parties must file their notices of appeal within 90 days of the order disposing of that first motion. Second, a motion for reconsideration is neither a license to repeat prior arguments nor a mechanism to prolong litigation. Rehashed arguments—such as the insistence that the IRS must prove certified mailing despite undisputed actual receipt and a timely Tax Court petition—will be rejected, and sanctions may follow for frivolous filings.

While unpublished, the panel’s reasoning aligns with and reinforces longstanding Eleventh Circuit and Tax Court practice: appellate jurisdiction is strictly timed, reconsideration is exceptional, and actual receipt of a deficiency notice undercuts technical mailing objections where no prejudice is shown. The result—dismissed in part and affirmed in part—serves as a practical roadmap for preserving appellate rights and focusing post-judgment motions on genuinely new and material grounds.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Comments