IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 97-60477
Summary Calendar
_____________________
EJIKE OKERE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(23246-95)
_________________________________________________________________
September 8, 1998
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this tax protester case, Ejike Okere, a native of Nigeria,
appeals the Tax Court’s finding of liability for income tax
deficiencies and negligence additions in relation to tax years
1991, 1992, and 1993, and its imposition of a jeopardy levy with
regard to same. Okere raises a vast number of confused and
intertwined arguments, but they all boil down to the following two
complaints, neither of which has any arguable merit.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
First, Okere contends that the Tax Court erred in its finding
of tax deficiencies. We review a decision of Tax Court applying
the same standards used in reviewing a decision of the district
court. Estate of McLendon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 135
F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir. 1998). Findings of fact are accepted
unless clearly erroneous; legal conclusions are reconsidered de
novo. Ballard v. United States, 17 F.3d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1994).
In this case, Okere’s deficiencies were based on wage and capital
gain income that he purportedly collected under other names and
social security numbers, as well as his taking of certain dependent
and head of household exemptions to which he was not entitled. Our
review of the record reveals ample evidence, including eyewitness
testimony, that Okere was indeed the person who received the income
at issue, and that he neither was a head-of-household nor was he
supporting the claimed dependents for tax purposes during the years
at issue. The Tax Court’s findings in this regard were not clearly
erroneous, and are therefore affirmed.
Second, Okere asserts that the Tax Court erred in allowing a
jeopardy assessment and levy pursuant to I.R.C. § 7429 and in
denying him relief for various torts allegedly committed by the
Secret Service. The Commissioner requested a jeopardy levy shortly
after Okere filed his petition with the Tax Court, when it was
determined that he was “designing quickly to depart the United
States” and to “place [his] property beyond the reach of the
Government by removing it from the United States, by concealing it,
-2-
by dissipating it, or by transferring it to others.” The alleged
torts occurred when the Secret Service arrested Okere outside the
Tax Court as part of another aspect of the government’s
investigation. With respect to the jeopardy levy, it is sufficient
to note that, under I.R.C. § 7429(f), “[a]ny determination made by
a court under this section shall be final and conclusive and shall
not be reviewed by any other court.” Okere’s jeopardy assessment
and levy were imposed after a determination under § 7429, so we
have no jurisdiction to review that issue in this appeal. As to
the alleged tort claims, it is a fundamental principle of tax law
that “[t]he Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction,
possessing only such power to adjudicate controversies as is
conferred upon it by the Internal Revenue Code.” Continental
Equities, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 551 F.2d 74, 79
(5th Cir. 1977); see also I.R.C. § 7442. Okere points us towards
no provision of the Code conferring jurisdiction for tort actions
against Secret Service agents, nor can we locate any. As such, the
Tax Court had no jurisdiction over these claims, and properly
declined to address them in the first instance.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Tax Court is
AFFIRMED, and Okere’s motion to stay collection is DENIED.
Furthermore, because this appeal was utterly frivolous, IT IS ALSO
ORDERED that Okere show cause within ten days time why reasonable
attorney’s fees and double costs should not be awarded to the
-3-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue as damages, pursuant to Fed. R.
App. P. 38.
-4-