Ryskamp v. Commissioner , 529 F. App'x 848 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN HENRY RYSKAMP, No. 10-73104
Petitioner - Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 17098-10L
v.
MEMORANDUM *
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted June 18, 2013 **
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
John Henry Ryskamp appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order dismissing
his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 26
U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo, Gorospe v. Comm’r, 451 F.3d 966, 968
(9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because
Ryskamp was never issued a notice of deficiency or a notice of determination. See
26 U.S.C. §§ 6213(a), 6330(d); see also Gorospe, 451 F.3d at 968 (the Tax Court
is a court of limited jurisdiction, and its subject matter jurisdiction is defined by
Title 26 of the United States Code); Abrams v. Comm’r, 814 F.2d 1356, 1356-57
(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).
We deny Ryskamp’s motions filed on June 17, 2011 and June 20, 2011.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-73104