United States v. 2020-06-12 | 19-70685 | ANDRE PROVOST, JR. V. CIR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDRE PAUL PROVOST, Jr.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 19-70685

Tax Ct. No. 23943-18

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court

Submitted June 2, 2020
**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Andrew Paul Provost, Jr., appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order
dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his petition regarding his tax liabilities for the
2005 tax year. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de
novo the Tax Court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Gorospe v. Comm’r, 451

*
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). Provost’s request for oral
argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
FILED

JUN 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-70685
F.3d 966, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Provost’s
petition because the Internal Revenue Service’s Notice CP504 that formed the
basis for Provost’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).
We reject as without merit Provost’s contention that the CP504 notice was
illegitimate.
AFFIRMED.