Introduction

In this consolidated appeal from the United States Tax Court, the Eleventh Circuit addressed two recurring procedural issues that frequently trip up pro se taxpayers and practitioners alike: (1) when the 90‑day deadline to appeal a Tax Court decision is tolled—and when it is not; and (2) whether the IRS must prove certified or registered mailing of a deficiency notice when the taxpayer actually received the notice and filed a timely petition.

Petitioner‑Appellant Joseph Belcik challenged a Tax Court decision assessing deficiencies, additions to tax, self‑employment tax, and a $2,000 penalty for frivolous positions. He attempted on appeal to attack both the underlying “liability order” and the Tax Court’s denial of his second motion for reconsideration. The Eleventh Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction to review the liability order because the notice of appeal was untimely, and it affirmed the Tax Court’s denial of reconsideration because the motion merely rehashed arguments already rejected multiple times below.

Although unpublished, the opinion is a crisp reaffirmation of two important principles: the 90‑day appeal clock from a Tax Court decision is not endlessly extendable by successive post‑judgment motions, and when a taxpayer receives a deficiency notice in time to petition the Tax Court and does so, the Commissioner need not prove the formalities of certified mailing to establish the Tax Court’s jurisdiction.

Summary of the Opinion

• Jurisdiction and timeliness: The court dismissed the appeal insofar as it sought review of the September 12, 2024 Tax Court liability order because Belcik’s January 3, 2025 notice of appeal was filed beyond the 90‑day deadline. A timely motion to vacate (filed September 24, 2024) tolled the clock until its denial (September 27, 2024), making December 26, 2024 the last day to notice an appeal. A second motion for reconsideration did not restart or extend the deadline.
• Denial of reconsideration: The court possessed jurisdiction to review the denial of Belcik’s second motion for reconsideration (denied October 7, 2024) and affirmed. Applying Tax Court Rule 161 and Eleventh Circuit precedent construing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b), the panel held that reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate issues already decided. Belcik’s second motion repeated arguments previously raised at least eight times.
• Deficiency notice mailing formalities: In recounting the Tax Court’s rulings, the panel noted the Tax Court’s determination that where a taxpayer actually receives the notice and timely petitions, the Commissioner need not prove certified mailing to establish jurisdiction—and, regardless, the record substantiated certified mailing and actual receipt (as evidenced by Belcik’s timely petitions).

Case Background

The IRS issued notices of deficiency to Belcik in July 2021 (tax years 2008–2016) and February 2022 (tax years 2017–2018), each stating they were sent via certified mail and advising of deadlines to petition the Tax Court. Belcik filed timely petitions in both matters and later amended them, asserting that the notices were void because they contained false information, were not sent by a proper IRS official, and failed to provide sufficient legal notice, depriving the Tax Court of jurisdiction.

The Tax Court consolidated the cases, denied Belcik’s motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (rejecting the contention that certified mailing was unproven), and after trial and post‑trial briefing entered a memorandum opinion on April 22, 2024. The court found unreported income, imposed self‑employment taxes for 2008–2016, assessed additions to tax, and levied a $2,000 penalty for baseless and frivolous filings. It later entered a formal decision (the “liability order”) on September 12, 2024.

Belcik moved to vacate (denied September 27, 2024) and then filed a second motion for reconsideration (denied October 7, 2024), repeatedly arguing that the Tax Court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction because the IRS had not proven certified mailing of the deficiency notices. He noticed his appeal on January 3, 2025.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

• 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1), § 7483; Fed. R. App. P. 13(a): Establish appellate jurisdiction over Tax Court decisions and prescribe the 90‑day deadline to appeal, including tolling when a timely motion to vacate is filed.
• Roberts v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 175 F.3d 889 (11th Cir. 1999): Untimely notices of appeal from the Tax Court deprive the court of jurisdiction.
• Dixie Sand & Gravel Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 631 F.2d 73 (5th Cir. 1980): Successive post‑judgment motions do not continue to toll the time to appeal. Adopted as binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit via Bonner v. City of Prichard.
• Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc): Pre‑October 1, 1981 Fifth Circuit decisions are binding in the Eleventh Circuit.
• Sloan v. Drummond Co., 102 F.4th 1169 (11th Cir. 2024): Subject‑matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo; also reflects the Eleventh Circuit’s consistent view that successive reconsideration motions do not extend appellate deadlines.
• Wright v. Preferred Research, Inc., 891 F.2d 886 (11th Cir. 1990): Reiterates the rule against using serial post‑judgment motions to prolong appeal time.
• Tax Ct. R. 161; Finnegan v. Commissioner, 926 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2019): Tax Court reconsideration practice is guided by standards akin to Rules 59(e) and 60(b)—not a vehicle to raise old arguments.
• Sarma v. Commissioner, 45 F.4th 1312 (11th Cir. 2022): Abuse of discretion is the standard of review for denial of reconsideration.
• Davenport Recycling Associates v. Commissioner, 220 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2000): Defines abuse‑of‑discretion review—reversal only for clear error of judgment.
• Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757 (11th Cir. 2005): Motions for reconsideration cannot relitigate matters already decided.
• Gonzalez‑Arroyo v. Doctors’ Center Hospital Bayamon, Inc., 54 F.4th 7 (1st Cir. 2022): Persuasive authority emphasizing that reconsideration is not for “regurgitating” prior arguments.

Legal Reasoning

1) Appellate Jurisdiction and Tolling of the 90‑Day Deadline

The controlling statute (26 U.S.C. § 7483) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(a) afford a taxpayer 90 days to appeal a Tax Court decision. When a timely motion to vacate is filed, the 90‑day period runs from entry of the order disposing of that motion. Here, the Tax Court’s liability order issued on September 12, 2024. Belcik’s timely motion to vacate (filed September 24) tolled the appeal period until it was denied (September 27). The 90‑day clock therefore expired on December 26, 2024. The January 3, 2025 notice of appeal was untimely as to the liability order.

Critically, the court reaffirmed the established rule that successive post‑judgment motions—such as a second motion for reconsideration—do not further toll the appeal deadline. That principle, anchored in Dixie Sand & Gravel and consistently applied in the Eleventh Circuit (e.g., Wright; Sloan), foreclosed Belcik’s attempt to restart the clock via his second reconsideration motion. The consequence is jurisdictional: an untimely notice of appeal deprives the court of authority to review the underlying decision (Roberts).

2) Denial of the Second Motion for Reconsideration

The Eleventh Circuit retained jurisdiction to review the denial of the second motion for reconsideration itself, because the notice of appeal was timely as to that order. Applying Tax Court Rule 161 and borrowing the standards of Rules 59(e) and 60(b) (Finnegan), the court reiterated well‑settled limits: reconsideration is reserved for correcting manifest errors of law or fact, accounting for newly discovered evidence, or recognizing an intervening change in controlling law. It is not a mechanism to reargue issues already decided (Michael Linet).

On the facts, the panel noted that Belcik had raised the same certified‑mail/jurisdiction challenge “at least eight prior occasions” throughout the litigation—initial petitions, pretrial motions, post‑trial briefing, a first motion for reconsideration, and a motion to vacate. His second reconsideration motion added no new law, evidence, or overlooked facts. Under abuse‑of‑discretion review (Sarma; Davenport), the Tax Court’s refusal to revisit settled rulings was well within its discretion.

3) Certified Mailing versus Actual Receipt of a Deficiency Notice

Although the Eleventh Circuit did not reach the merits of the liability decision, it recounted a key rationale from the Tax Court’s denial of reconsideration: when a taxpayer actually receives a notice of deficiency and files a timely petition, the Commissioner need not further prove the formalities of certified or registered mailing to establish the Tax Court’s jurisdiction. The record here showed actual receipt—indeed, the timely petitions themselves are potent evidence of timely notice—and, in any event, the Commissioner produced USPS certified mail tracking consistent with mailing by certified mail.

This aligns with the longstanding understanding of deficiency notice practice: the mailing requirements in the Internal Revenue Code are designed to ensure that the notice is sufficient, but actual receipt in time to petition the Tax Court typically cures technical mailing defects. Belcik’s insistence on an “explicit finding” of certified mailing could not overcome the combined evidence of receipt and timely petitioning.

Impact and Practical Implications

• Appeal deadlines are unforgiving: For appeals from the Tax Court, the 90‑day deadline is jurisdictional. A single timely motion to vacate can toll the clock, but subsequent reconsideration motions do not. Practitioners should docket the new 90‑day deadline from the order denying a timely first post‑judgment motion and file the notice of appeal well before that date.
• Serial reconsideration is counterproductive: Using multiple reconsideration motions to rehash arguments risks both forfeiting appellate review (by missing the deadline) and inviting penalties in the Tax Court for frivolous or dilatory tactics. Here, the Tax Court imposed a $2,000 penalty for baseless filings (consistent with its statutory authority, typically 26 U.S.C. § 6673(a)(1)).
• Jurisdictional challenges premised on mailing formalities are weak when there is actual receipt: Where a taxpayer actually receives a deficiency notice and timely petitions, litigating certified‑mail formalities will almost never divest the Tax Court of jurisdiction. The proper focus then shifts to the merits.
• Unpublished but persuasive: This per curiam, unpublished opinion is not binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, but it is consistent with and reinforces settled law and will be persuasive in future cases, particularly on tolling and reconsideration standards.
• Pro se litigants take note: The case exemplifies how procedural missteps—especially missing appellate deadlines—can preclude review of substantive challenges. Courts will enforce jurisdictional time limits even against self‑represented parties.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Notice of deficiency: The IRS’s formal determination that you owe additional tax, triggering a 90‑day window to file a petition in the Tax Court to challenge it before paying.
• Certified or registered mail: Statutory mailing methods that, when used, help establish that a notice was properly issued. But if you actually receive the notice in time and file a timely Tax Court petition, disputes over the mailing formalities generally do not defeat the court’s jurisdiction.
• Tax Court “memorandum opinion” vs. “decision” (order): The opinion explains the court’s reasoning; the “decision” is the formal, appealable judgment. The 90‑day appellate clock runs from the decision (or from the order disposing of a timely motion to vacate).
• Motion to vacate vs. motion for reconsideration: Both are post‑judgment motions. A timely motion to vacate will toll the appeal deadline until it’s resolved. A later, successive motion for reconsideration will not extend the deadline again.
• Tolling the appeal period: “Tolling” pauses the countdown. In Tax Court cases, only the first timely post‑judgment motion (like a motion to vacate) tolls the 90‑day period to appeal; successive motions do not.
• Abuse of discretion: A deferential review standard. The appellate court will reverse only if it has a firm conviction that the lower court made a clear error of judgment—e.g., ignoring new controlling law, new evidence, or a manifest error—not merely because it would have decided differently.
• Per curiam; Non‑Argument Calendar; Unpublished: “Per curiam” means the decision is by the court, not a named judge. “Non‑Argument Calendar” indicates the case was decided without oral argument. “Unpublished” opinions are not binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit but can be cited as persuasive authority.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Belcik delivers two salient messages. First, the 90‑day deadline to appeal a Tax Court decision is strict: a single timely motion to vacate can toll the period, but successive reconsideration motions cannot. Missing the recalculated deadline is fatal to appellate jurisdiction. Second, litigants cannot use reconsideration as a backdoor to endlessly relitigate issues already rejected; without new law, new facts, or clear error, denial is an appropriate exercise of discretion.

On the jurisdictional controversy over certified mailing, the court endorsed the Tax Court’s common‑sense posture: actual receipt paired with a timely petition obviates the need for the Commissioner to prove certified mailing. The broader takeaway is pragmatic—focus on substantive defenses and comply meticulously with procedural deadlines. Procedural missteps can forfeit review of the merits, as happened here.

In sum, while unpublished, this opinion reinforces entrenched law on appellate timeliness, the limited scope of reconsideration, and the sufficiency of actual receipt of deficiency notices—doctrines that will continue to shape Tax Court litigation and appeals within the Eleventh Circuit.