NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN HENRY RYSKAMP, No. 18-71325
Petitioner-Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 3899-18
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
John Henry Ryskamp appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order dismissing
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his petition regarding his tax liabilities for tax
year 2018. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de
novo the Tax Court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Gorospe v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Comm’r, 451 F.3d 966, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over
Ryskamp’s petition because the Internal Revenue Service’s document that formed
the basis for Ryskamp’s petition was not a notice of determination. See 26 U.S.C.
§ 6330 (notice of determination); Gorospe, 451 F.3d at 968 (the Tax Court is a
court of limited jurisdiction, and its subject matter is defined by Title 26 of the
United States Code). Contrary to Ryskamp’s contentions, his substantive due
process arguments do not confer jurisdiction on the Tax Court.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Ryskamp’s request for class certification, set forth in his opening brief, is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 18-71324