United States v. 2020-08-13 | 19-72626 | JOHN RYSKAMP V. CIR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN HENRY RYSKAMP,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 19-72626

Tax Ct. No. 6595-19

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court

Submitted August 5, 2020
**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, 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, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2018. We have jurisdiction under
26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s dismissal for lack of

*
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).
FILED

AUG 13 2020

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

2 19-72626
subject 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 Notice LT16 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 Tile 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 at unsupported by the record Ryskamp’s contention that the Tax
Court was biased against him.
The Commissioner’s motion for sanctions in the amount of $8,000 (Docket
Entry No. 10) is granted. See Fed. R. App. P. 38; Grimes v. Comm’r, 806 F.2d
1451, 1454 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Sanctions are appropriate when the result of an appeal
is obvious and the arguments are wholly without merit.”).
AFFIRMED.