Court Opinion

ID: 9393392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-10 00:00:28.989821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:52.984451
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60469     Document: 00516743974         Page: 1     Date Filed: 05/09/2023

            United States Court of Appeals
                 for the Fifth Circuit                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                            Fifth Circuit

                                ____________                              FILED
                                                                       May 9, 2023
                                 No. 22-60469                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                ____________                              Clerk

   Hassan Ali Pejouhesh,

                                                           Petitioner—Appellant,

                                       versus

   Commissioner of Internal Revenue,

                                             Respondent—Appellee.
                   ______________________________

                        Appeal from a Decision of the
                         United States the Tax Court
                           Agency No. 34748-21
                   ______________________________

   Before Clement, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   James E. Graves, Jr., Circuit Judge:
          Hassan Ali Pejouhesh, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, moves for
   leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a change of venue for his tax appeal to
   the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
   However, for the reasons stated below, we dismiss this appeal for lack of
   jurisdiction.
          In November 2021, Pejouhesh petitioned the Tax Court alleging that
   he had not received economic impact payments (“EIPs”) under the CARES
   Act despite being eligible. See 26 U.S.C. § 6428 et seq. The Commissioner of
Case: 22-60469         Document: 00516743974                Page: 2        Date Filed: 05/09/2023

                                           No. 22-60469

   Internal Revenue (“CIR”) moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that no notice
   of deficiency, as authorized by 26 U.S.C. § 6212(a), and required by 26
   U.S.C. § 6213(a), had been sent to Pejouhesh.
           On February 14, 2022, the Tax Court directed Pejouhesh to submit an
   objection to the motion to dismiss. Following the request and subsequent
   approval of two extensions to file an objection, Pejouhesh moved once more
   for an extension of time. On July 29, 2022, the Tax Court denied the motion
   for an extension of time, granted the CIR’s motion to dismiss, and ordered
   that the case be dismissed after finding that Pejouhesh failed to establish
   jurisdiction.
           However, after the court entered its Order, Pejouhesh filed a pleading
   entitled “Motion Petitioner Objection to Respondent Motion to Dismiss for
   Lack of Jurisdiction.” 1 In it, he asserts that he attached a valid notice of
   deficiency to his petition. In addition, he argues that he submitted a Form
   3531, titled “Request for Signature or Missing Information to Complete
   Return,” which details how his tax return for the 2020 tax year was
   incomplete because it lacked a valid original signature.
           A few weeks later, Pejouhesh filed a notice of appeal in this court from
   the Order where, inter alia, he challenges the failure of the Tax Court to
   consider his newest pleading. To date, the Tax Court has not issued a ruling
   on Pejouhesh’s “Motion Petitioner Objection to Respondent Motion to
   Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.”

           _____________________
           1
            Generally, this court construes pro se filings liberally. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
   222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Read broadly, this motion will be construed as a Motion to Vacate
   or Revise as the substance of Pejouhesh’s pleading directly challenges the basis of the Tax
   Court’s Order. See Tax Ct. Rule 162.

                                                  2
Case: 22-60469      Document: 00516743974            Page: 3    Date Filed: 05/09/2023

                                      No. 22-60469

           The United States Courts of Appeals have exclusive jurisdiction to
   review decisions of the Tax Court. 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). For a Tax Court’s
   decision to be reviewable, it must be final. Nixon v. Comm’r, 167 F.3d 920,
   920 (5th Cir. 1999); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (“The courts of ap-
   peals . . . shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the dis-
   trict courts of the United States . . . .”). A “final decision” typically is one
   that puts an end to the litigation on the merits and “leaves nothing for the
   court to do but execute the judgment.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437
   U.S. 463, 467 (1978). “This finality rule is designed to avoid piecemeal trial
   and appellate litigation and the delays and costs of multiple appeals upon both
   parties and courts, as well as to provide a clear test so that needless precau-
   tionary appeals need not be taken lest substantive rights be lost.” Newpark
   Shipbuilding & Repair, Inc., v. Roundtree, 723 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1984).
           As such, absent certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or a separate
   Rule 54(b) type order, an order disposing of fewer than all parties or claims
   in an action is unappealable, subject to exceptions not applicable here. Nixon,
   167 F.3d at 920. That is what we have here. Since no certification under
   § 1292(b) or a separate Rule 54(b) type order exists, and Pejouhesh’s plead-
   ing is still pending before the Tax Court, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
           It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed sua sponte for
   lack of jurisdiction without prejudice. All pending motions are DENIED as
   moot.

                                           3