The Tax Times

Tuesday, April 28, 2026

Tax Court To Suspended Corporations: You Can’t Sue (Even On Time)

The Tax Court’s recent decision in Arbor Vita Corporation d.b.a. Hemediagnostics v. Commissioner, 166 T.C. No. 5 (Mar. 16, 2026), is a sharp reminder that a timely petition is not enough if your corporate client lacks capacity under state law. For California entities in particular, the case shows that a later “revivor” will not rescue a petition once the IRS has a statute of limitations defense in hand.

The setup: a timely CDP petition by a dead‑in‑the‑water corporation

Arbor Vita is a California biotech corporation that ended up with unpaid federal unemployment tax and penalty liabilities. The IRS filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien and issued a Collection Due Process (CDP) notice under section 6320. Arbor Vita did what we advise clients to do: it requested a CDP hearing and, after Appeals issued a Notice of Determination on March 6, 2025, it filed a petition with the Tax Court on April 3, 2025—within the 30‑day period in section 6330(d)(1).

There was one fatal problem: California had already suspended Arbor Vita’s corporate powers on July 1, 2024 for state noncompliance, and that suspension remained in place throughout the entire 30‑day filing window. The corporation did not obtain a Certificate of Revivor until September 17, 2025, long after day 30.

The IRS moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the petition was filed by an entity that lacked capacity to sue.

Capacity, not just timeliness: how Rule 60(c) and California law collide

Tax Court Rule 60(c) tells us that a corporation’s capacity to litigate is determined “by the law under which it was organized,” which, here, is California. Under California law, a suspended corporation “may not prosecute or defend an action” in court until it is revived. That disability is more than a technical defect; it goes to the corporation’s legal existence as a litigant.

Judge Landy held that Arbor Vita lacked the “requisite corporate capacity” when it filed its petition and when the 30‑day CDP period expired. Because capacity is a prerequisite to the court’s ability to entertain the case, the petition was a nullity from the outset.

This is a key practice point: Boechler made the CDP deadline non‑jurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling, but it did not change the need for a valid, capacity‑bearing petitioner. You can have a petition that is timely but still incurable if the filer itself had no legal capacity.

Why California revivor couldn’t save the day

Arbor Vita argued that California’s revivor statute, which generally provides that revival restores the corporation’s powers “as if” they had never been suspended, should relate back and validate the petition. California courts do sometimes treat revivor as retroactively curing a suspension for procedural defects.

The Tax Court was not persuaded. Looking to California authority, including Ninth Circuit precedent in Community Electric Service v. National Electrical Contractors Ass’n, the court emphasized a crucial limitation: revivor cannot be applied in a way that strips an opposing party of an accrued statute of limitations defense.

By the time Arbor Vita obtained its Certificate of Revivor, the 30‑day CDP filing period had long expired and the IRS had a fully vested limitations defense. Allowing revivor to “relate back” in this situation would erase that defense, contrary to California’s own statutory scheme and case law. The court also rejected Arbor Vita’s attempt to analogize to California cases treating notices of appeal more forgivingly on revival, noting that those decisions likewise do not authorize undermining an accrued limitations defense.

Bottom line: state law relation‑back doctrine for revivor stops where the government’s limitations defense begins.

Equitable tolling after Boechler: a limit emerges

Post‑Boechler, many taxpayers have looked to equitable tolling as the safety net for CDP petitions. The Tax Court itself has recognized equitable tolling in other contexts, including Belagio Fine Jewelry, Inc. v. Commissioner, 164 T.C. No. 7 (2025), which held the 90‑day section 7436 deadline is tollable in principle.

Arbor Vita tried to use equitable tolling as a backstop, arguing that its suspension should count as an extraordinary circumstance justifying relief. Judge Landy drew an important distinction: equitable tolling is about extending a limitations period when a party, despite diligence, could not file on time. Here, the petition was filed on time; the defect was that the entity doing the filing lacked capacity at that moment.

Because there was no “late filing” to excuse, there was no limitations period to toll. Equitable tolling could not be used to paper over a capacity problem built into state law. That framing matters for future cases: capacity defects sit outside the Boechler clock.

Practice takeaways for tax professionals

For those of us representing corporations in IRS disputes, Arbor Vita is less about exotic doctrine and more about risk management and checklists.

Here are concrete takeaways:

· Verify good standing before you file. For any corporate or LLC petitioner, confirm its status with the state of organization (and often the state of principal place of business) before drafting the petition. In California, a quick FTB or Secretary of State check can prevent a jurisdictional disaster.

· Treat suspended status as a red light, not a yellow one. If the client is suspended, get the revivor completed and documented before filing in Tax Court. Filing “to protect the deadline” while suspended may leave you with a petition the court cannot recognize.

· Don’t over‑rely on revivor’s relation‑back. State law may allow revival to cure some litigation acts during suspension, but not where doing so would deprive the IRS of an already accrued limitations defense. Arbor Vita shows that CDP and similar short‑window actions fall squarely in that danger zone.

· Separate timeliness analysis from capacity analysis. After Boechler and Belagio, more deadlines are arguably subject to equitable tolling. That does not relax the separate requirement that the petitioner must exist, have capacity, and meet Rule 60(c) at the time of filing.

· Update engagement letters and internal procedures. Consider adding explicit language about the client’s responsibility to maintain good standing and authorizing you to verify status. On the internal side, build a “capacity check” into your Tax Court filing workflow.

Example: A California S‑corp with a looming 90‑day deficiency deadline and a quiet FTB suspension for missed state returns. Under Arbor Vita, a petition filed on day 89 while suspended is at serious risk, even if the corporation scrambles to revive a month later. The safer path is to prioritize revivor immediately; if revival truly cannot be completed in time, you may need to consider alternative forums or collection strategies rather than assume a defective Tax Court petition can be fixed after the fact.

Have a Tax Problem?

Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A.

for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243)

Sources:

1. https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2026/3/16/corporate-capacity-state-law-revivor-and-the-limits-of-equitable-tolling-an-analysis-of-arbor-vita-corporation-v-commissioner

2. https://irstaxtrouble.com/can-corporate-suspension-foreclose-u-s-tax-court-review/

3. https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report/biotechs-tax-court-petition-fails-due-to-suspended-status

4. http://www.smbiz.com/sbtc26.html

5. https://kpmg.com/kpmg-us/content/dam/kpmg/taxnewsflash/pdf/2026/04/26081.pdf

6. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2705607

7. https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2026/3/16/corporate-capacity-state-law-revivor-and-the-limits-of-equitable-tolling-an-analysis-of-arbor-vita-corporation-v-commissioner

8. https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report/biotechs-tax-court-petition-fails-due-to-suspended-status

9. https://www.jibudocs.com/public/summaries/b0e4ad4d-c667-080d-44a5-2dc7ee1b0389

10. https://www.law360.com/tax-authority/articles/2453637/tax-court-tosses-biotech-co-s-case-over-corporate-status

11. https://irstaxtrouble.com/can-corporate-suspension-foreclose-u-s-tax-court-review/

12. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/a-corporation-s-loss-of-capacity-and-5171697/

13. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/20-1472/

14. https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2025/4/15/navigating-the-90-day-deadline-for-employment-tax-redeterminations-the-belagio-fine-jewelry-inc-case-and-equitable-tolling

15. https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2025/oct/equitable-tolling-does-not-apply-to-excuse-late-filing-of-petition/

16. https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ARC24_PurpleBook_07_StrengthTPR_45.pdf

17. https://www.flclaw.net/suspended-ca-corporations-cannot-file-tax-court-petitions/

18. https://lacba.org/?pg=lacba-news&blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=98562

19. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ben-white-8186525_why-so-sirius-fifth-circuit-rejects-functional-activity-7449857278138060800-Muuz

20. https://ustaxcourt.gov/files/documents/162_TC_243-260.pdf

21. https://taxaid.com/criminal-tax-law/tax-court-denies-equitable-tolling-to-firm-that-the-supreme-court-allowed-equitable-tolling/

New 1% IRS Tax on Remittance Transfers: What Senders and Providers Need to Know

On April 13, 2026, the IRS and Treasury released proposed regulations under new Internal Revenue Code section 4475, explaining how a new 1% federal excise tax will apply to many cash transfers from the United States to recipients in foreign countries. Although these rules are still proposed, the underlying tax is scheduled to take effect for transfers made after December 31, 2025.

The basics: what is the new remittance tax?

Section 4475 was enacted as part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” and imposes a 1% excise tax on certain remittance transfers from the U.S. to foreign countries. In plain English, this is an extra 1% federal tax that can apply when you send money abroad through a money transfer business or similar service.

Key points:

· The tax is 1% of the amount of the taxable remittance transfer.

· It applies to transfers made after December 31, 2025.

· The sender is legally liable for the tax, but the remittance transfer provider must generally collect it at the time of the transfer.

When does the tax apply?

The proposed regulations make clear that not every international transfer is taxed.

The 1% tax generally applies when:

· The money is sent from the United States to a recipient in a foreign country.

· The sender pays the provider using cash, a money order, a cashier’s check, or a similar physical instrument.

The tax does not generally apply to:

· Transfers funded directly from a bank account (for example, an ACH or wire from your U.S. checking account).

· Transfers funded by U.S. debit or credit cards, as described in many current summaries of section 4475.

· Certain transfers from accounts at institutions subject to the Bank Secrecy Act, such as some credit union account withdrawals, which benefit from a specific statutory exemption.

For many families that still rely on cash or money orders to send support abroad, this distinction will matter a great deal: cash at a storefront remittance business may be taxed, while an online transfer funded directly from a U.S. bank account may not.

Who has to collect and pay?

Under the statute and the proposed regulations, the sender owes the tax, but the burden of collection falls on the “remittance transfer provider” (RTP).

· Providers (think Western Union, MoneyGram, and similar services) must calculate the 1% tax, collect it from the sender, and remit it to the IRS.

· Providers report the tax on Form 720, Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return, and make required semimonthly deposits.

· If the provider fails to collect the tax from the sender, the provider becomes secondarily liable and must pay it itself.

The IRS has already signaled some limited failure‑to‑deposit penalty relief for the first three quarters of 2026 to give providers time to build systems and processes.

Timing, comments, and what’s next

The proposed regulations are open for public comment, with written comments and hearing requests due June 12, 2026. Taxpayers and industry groups can weigh in on definitions, anti‑avoidance rules, and operational issues before Treasury finalizes the regulations.

Despite the “proposed” label, the tax itself is in the Code and scheduled to apply to qualifying remittance transfers after December 31, 2025, with the first deposits due January 29, 2026 and first quarterly Form 720 filings covering the first quarter of 2026.

Practical planning tips

For individual senders:

· If you routinely send cash abroad using a storefront remittance service, expect to see a new 1% federal tax line added to qualifying transfers in 2026.

· If possible, consider using bank‑funded or card‑funded transfers that fall outside the cash‑based definition in section 4475, as currently described by IRS guidance and practitioner summaries.

For remittance transfer providers and financial institutions:

· Inventory your cross‑border products and identify which are funded by cash, money orders, cashier’s checks, or similar instruments.

· Build functionality to: (1) flag taxable transfers, (2) calculate and collect the 1% from senders, and (3) integrate the data into your Form 720 and deposit processes.

· Monitor the final regulations and any additional IRS guidance, including potential updates to Form 720 and excise tax deposit rules under 26 CFR part 40.

If you send money abroad or operate in the remittance space, now is the time to understand how these proposed rules work so you are not surprised when the 1% excise tax becomes part of your 2026 reality.

Have a Tax Problem?

Contact the Tax Lawyers at