John Henry Ryskamp v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 10-73104
Tax Ct. No. 17098-10L
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-73104 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 of 2 --