U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2025

Hubbard v. Commissioner

Hubbard v. Commissioner
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Decided April 25, 2025

Hubbard v. Commissioner

Opinion

Case: 25-1498 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 04/25/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ DIETRICH MICHAEL HUBBARD, Petitioner-Appellant v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee ______________________ 2025-1498 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Tax Court in No. 8703- 23. ______________________ Before TARANTO, WALLACH, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER After Dietrich Michael Hubbard’s notice of appeal from the United States Tax Court was transmitted here, the par- ties were directed to address the court’s jurisdiction over this appeal. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“CIR”) argues the appeal should be dismissed. Mr. Hub- bard has not filed a response. We transfer the appeal.

“The United States Courts of Appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) Case: 25-1498 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 04/25/2025

2 HUBBARD v. COMMISSIONER

shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Tax Court[.]” 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1); see 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Thus, we lack jurisdiction. We conclude transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is appropriate under the circumstances of this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631; § 7482(b)(1)(A); ECF No. 1-2 at 2. 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: This appeal and all case filings are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pur- suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

FOR THE COURT

April 25, 2025 Date

1 CIR argues Mr. Hubbard’s notice of appeal is un- timely such that no court of appeals would have jurisdic- tion. See ECF No. 5 at 5 (citing Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209 (2007)); see also 26 U.S.C. § 7483; Fed. R. App. P. 13(a)(1), 26(b). We conclude the better course is to trans- fer so the Sixth Circuit may address that issue, and CIR’s other arguments, in the first instance. See Harrow v. Dep’t of Def., 601 U.S. 480, 489 (2024) (addressing Bowles); 26 U.S.C. § 7441.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.