Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-24-09006/USCOURTS-ca10-24-09006-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Appellee
Royalty Management Insurance Company, Ltd.
Appellant
Andrea Sheperd
Appellant
John B. Sheperd
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

ROYALTY MANAGEMENT 

INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.; JOHN 

B. SHEPERD; ANDREA SHEPERD, 

 Petitioners - Appellants,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL 

REVENUE, 

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 24-9006

(CIR No. 3823-19)

(Commissioner of Internal Revenue)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before PHILLIPS, MORITZ, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before us on appellee Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s 

Combined Motion for Permission to File Out of Time a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 

Appellate Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction. We also 

have before us a response in opposition to the Motion filed by appellants Royalty 

Management Insurance Company, Ltd., John Sheperd, and Andrea Sheperd, and a reply 

to Appellants’ response in opposition filed by the Commissioner.

Before addressing the jurisdictional issue presented by the Motion, we note that 

under the version of Tenth Circuit Rule 27.3(A)(3)(a) then in effect, the Motion “should” 

have been filed within 14 days after the notice of appeal was filed, unless good cause can 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 10, 2025

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 24-9006 Document: 22 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 1
2

be shown. 10th Cir. R. 27.3(A)(3)(a) (2024). There is no dispute that the Motion was not 

filed within 14 days of the filing of the notice of appeal. The Commissioner asserts that 

good cause justifies the delay, while Appellants contend no good cause has been shown. 

We need not—and therefore do not—decide whether good cause has been shown. We 

have an independent duty to examine our own jurisdiction. Hill v. Vanderbilt Cap. 

Advisors, LLC, 702 F.3d 1220, 1223 (10th Cir. 2012). It is our own independent 

examination that leads us to conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

This court may “review decisions by the Tax Court in exactly the same 

circumstances in which we review decisions by the district courts.” Minemyer v. 

Comm’r., 995 F.3d 781, 783 (citation omitted). See also 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1) (granting 

courts of appeals “exclusive jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Tax Court . . . in 

the same manner and to the same extent as decisions of the district courts in civil actions 

tried without a jury.”). Accordingly, for the court to have jurisdiction to review a Tax 

Court decision, that decision must be a final decision. Minemyer at 783. And it is wellsettled that a final decision is one that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves 

nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty., 

Ohio, 527 U.S. 198, 204 (1999) (internal quotations omitted).

Here, Appellants seek to appeal from the Tax Court’s September 16, 2024 

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion (“Memorandum”). But the Memorandum 

expressly deferred ruling on the applicability of one of the penalties the IRS had imposed 

on Appellants, and specifically noted that further proceedings would be forthcoming. In 

Minemyer, we concluded that the Tax Court had not entered a final order because it had 

Appellate Case: 24-9006 Document: 22 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 2
3

left unresolved Minemyer’s liability for civil fraud penalties. Id. at 784. The same 

conclusion is warranted here. The Tax Court has not resolved one aspect of Appellants’ 

liability, and so there is no final decision to review.

Finally, opposing the Motion, Appellants contend that Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 54(b) provides us jurisdiction to review the Memorandum. Not so. Under Rule 

54(b), a district court may direct the entry of final judgment as to fewer than all claims or 

parties, but only if it expressly determines that there is no just reason to delay entering 

such a final judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). In Minemyer, we said that a Tax Court could 

make a similar certification. Id. at 784. But the Tax Court made no such certification or 

finding here. See id. (requiring a “finding by the Tax Court . . . similar to a Rule 54(b) 

certification” to make an otherwise non-final order immediately appealable). 

The Tax Court has not entered an order ending this litigation on the merits and the 

Tax Court has not certified the Memorandum or any portion of it for immediate appeal. 

Consequently, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. We deny the Motion as moot. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

Appellate Case: 24-9006 Document: 22 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 3