Landess v. Commissioner , 354 F. App'x 338 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                                                        FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    December 1, 2009
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    DAVID E. LANDESS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,                    No. 09-9001
    v.                                                (United States Tax Court)
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL                          (Tax Court No. 5393-07)
    REVENUE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before HARTZ, SEYMOUR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
    of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    David Landess, proceeding pro se, appeals the Tax Court’s order granting
    the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service’s motion to dismiss for lack of
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
    however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
    Cir. R. 32.1.
    jurisdiction and denying as moot his motion to restrain assessment or order refund
    of amount collected. We affirm.
    The Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because
    Mr. Landess was never issued a Notice of Deficiency or a Notice of
    Determination. See 
    26 U.S.C. §§ 6213
    , 6330; Abrams v. Comm’r, 
    814 F.2d 1356
    ,
    1357 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (holding that a pre-filing notification letter
    from the Internal Revenue Service was not a Notice of Deficiency and therefore,
    the Tax Court had no jurisdiction over the taxpayer’s petition); see also Tuka v.
    Comm’r, No. 09-1598, 
    2009 WL 3236066
    , at *1-2 (3rd Cir. 2009) (unpublished)
    (“[T]he lock-in letter . . . does not constitute a notice of determination.”); Davis
    v. Comm’r, 
    T.C. Memo. 2008-238
    , 
    2008 WL 4703706
    , at *7 (2008) (“[A] lock-in
    letter is not a levy.”).
    We have examined all of Mr. Landess’s arguments and find them
    unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT
    Stephen H. Anderson
    Circuit Judge
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-9001

Citation Numbers: 354 F. App'x 338

Judges: Hartz, Seymour, Anderson

Filed Date: 12/1/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024