John Ryskamp v. Cir ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN HENRY RYSKAMP, No. 18-71324
Petitioner-Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 20628-17
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
John Henry Ryskamp appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order dismissing
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his petition regarding his tax liabilities for tax
years 2003, 2005-2006, and 2008-2010. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C.
§ 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s dismissal for lack of subject
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
matter jurisdiction. Gorospe v. Comm’r, 451 F.3d 966, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We
affirm.
The Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over
Ryskamp’s petition because the Internal Revenue Service’s letter that formed the
basis for Ryskamp’s petition was not a notice of deficiency or a notice of
determination. See 26 U.S.C. § 6212 (notice of deficiency); 26 U.S.C. § 6330(notice of determination); Gorospe, 451 F.3d at 968 (the Tax Court is a court of
limited jurisdiction, and its subject matter is defined by Title 26 of the United
States Code). Contrary to Ryskamp’s contentions, his substantive due process
arguments do not confer jurisdiction on the Tax Court.
We reject as without merit Ryskamp’s contention that the Tax Court judge
was biased against him.
All pending requests and motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 18-71324