Dietrich Michael Hubbard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DIETRICH MICHAEL HUBBARD,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2025-1498
______________________
Appeal from the United States Tax Court in No. 8703-
23.
______________________
Before T ARANTO, WALLACH , and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit
Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
After Dietrich Michael Hubbard’s notice of appeal from
the United States Tax Court was transmitted here, the par-
ties were directed to address the court’s jurisdiction over
this appeal. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(“CIR”) argues the appeal should be dismissed. Mr. Hub-
bard has not filed a response. We transfer the appeal.
“The United States Courts of Appeals (other than the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit)
Case: 25-1498 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 04/25/2025

-- 1 of 2 --

HUBBARD v. COMMISSIONER 2
shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review the decisions of
the Tax Court[.]” 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1); see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295. Thus, we lack jurisdiction. We conclude transfer
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
is appropriate under the circumstances of this case. See 28
U.S.C. § 1631; § 7482(b)(1)(A); ECF No. 1-2 at 2.1
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
This appeal and all case filings are transferred to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
April 25, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
1 CIR argues Mr. Hubbard’s notice of appeal is un-
timely such that no court of appeals would have jurisdic-
tion. See ECF No. 5 at 5 (citing Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S.
205, 209 (2007)); see also 26 U.S.C. § 7483; Fed. R. App.
P. 13(a)(1), 26(b). We conclude the better course is to trans-
fer so the Sixth Circuit may address that issue, and CIR’s
other arguments, in the first instance. See Harrow v. Dep’t
of Def., 601 U.S. 480, 489 (2024) (addressing Bowles); 26
U.S.C. § 7441.
Case: 25-1498 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 04/25/2025

-- 2 of 2 --