Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01896/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01896-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7401 IRS: Tax Liability

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION—No. C-06-01896

RMW

JAH

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-filed on 9/8/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOAN DONATO,

Petitioner,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE SERVICE,

Respondent.

No. C-06-01896 RMW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION

Joan Donato has petitioned this court for injunctive relief, claiming she was not afforded

the full administrative procedure to which she was entitled when contesting certain tax liabilities. 

Respondent Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service has pending a motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It is not clear, however, that the court has

jurisdiction over Donato's petition.

Donato recites in her petition that jurisdiction is proper here under 26 U.S.C. 6330(d)(1)(B). 

Pet. at 1. That statute provides that a person may appeal certain determinations of the Internal

Revenue Service 

(A) to the Tax Court (and the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction with

respect to such matter); or

Case 5:06-cv-01896-RMW Document 14 Filed 09/08/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 This section was recently amended to eliminate the option of appealing to a district court. PL

109-280, 120 Stat 780 (August 17, 2006). The amendment has not yet taken effect and thus does not

apply to Donato's petition. Id. ("The amendment made by this section shall apply to determinations

made after the date which is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.").

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION—No. C-06-01896

RMW

JAH 2

(B) if the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction of the underlying tax

liability, to a district court of the United States.

26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1).1 There is nothing in Donato's petition that addresses whether the Tax

Court has jurisdiction over "the underlying tax liability" and therefore this action. Respondent has

previously informed Donato that any appeal should be made to the Tax Court. See Rebuttal, Ex.

45 at 1. Respondent has not otherwise addressed the issue of jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional requirements are limits on the power of a court to decide a case and cannot

be waived. Action Embroidery Corp. v. Atlantic Embroidery, Inc., 368 F.3d 1174, 1179 (9th Cir.

2004). From the phrasing of § 6630(d)(1), it appears that Congress intended for certain appeals

under that subsection to be exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Tax Court and all other

appeals to be exclusively within the jurisdiction of the district court. As it is not clear which is the

case here, the parties are ordered to address the issue of whether this court has jurisdiction over

Donato's petition.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court orders each party to file a brief not to exceed three

pages setting forth whether under 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1) jurisdiction over Donato's petition

properly lies with this court or with the Tax Court. These briefs are to be filed no later than noon

on September 14, 2006. If any hearing on jurisdiction is necessary, it will be consolidated with

the hearing on the United States' motion to dismiss, scheduled for September 15, 2006.

DATED: 9/8/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-01896-RMW Document 14 Filed 09/08/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION—No. C-06-01896

RMW

JAH 3

A copy of this order was mailed on to:

Counsel for Plaintiff(s):

Joan Donato 

20180 Old Big Basin Road 

Boulder Creek, CA 95006 

Counsel for Defendant(s):

Cynthia Lewis Stier 

United States Attorney 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

Case 5:06-cv-01896-RMW Document 14 Filed 09/08/06 Page 3 of 3