Summary
In Ballard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-159, aff'd, 310 F. App'x 177 (9th Cir. 2009), the taxpayer contended that IRS Letter 2081(CG) constituted a valid notice of determination that conferred jurisdiction on the Court under section 6330.
Summary of this case from Romano-Murphy v. Comm'rOpinion
No. 07-73786.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed January 26, 2009.
John Ballard, Phelan, CA, pro se.
Janet A. Bradley, Esquire, Eileen J. O'Connor, Esquire, Bridget Maria Rowan, U.S. Department of Justice, Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, U.S. Tax Court, Donald L. Korb, Esquire, Acting Chief Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court. Tax Ct. No. 4307-07.
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
John Ballard appeals pro se from the tax court's order dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. Abrams v. Comm'r, 814 F.2d 1356, 1357 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). We affirm.
The tax court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because Ballard was never issued a Notice of Deficiency or a Notice of Determination. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6213(a), 6330(d); Abrams, 814 F.2d at 1357 (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).
Ballard's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.