Case ID: f-appx_588/html/0713-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RONALD G.S. AU, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 13-72152.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 22, 2014.
    Ronald G.S. AU, Honolulu, HI, pro se.
    John Schumann, Gilbert Steven Rothen-berg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Bridget Maria Rowan, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Robert R. Di Tro-lio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S.'Tax Court, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ronald G.S. Au, an attorney, 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.

The Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because Au was never issued a notice of determination. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6320(c), 6330(d) (conferring jurisdiction to the Tax Court for review of a lien or levy only after the Internal Revenue Service issues a determination based upon a collection due process hearing); 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).

Because we affirm on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, we do not consider Au’s contentions regarding the underlying tax liability, penalties, and payments.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.