Said Karara v. USA, No. 10-11705 (11th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 10-11705 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NOVEMBER 4, 2010 JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket No. 2:09-cv-00224-CEH-SPC SAID M. KARARA, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (November 4, 2010) Before CARNES, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Said Karara requested an interest abatement from the Internal Revenue Service, which the IRS denied. Karara sought review of this denial in the district court. The district court dismissed his case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Karara now appeals, pro se, contending that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. Congress has mandated that [t]he Tax Court shall have jurisdiction for the review of the IRS denial of a request for abatement. 26 U.S.C. § 6404(h)(1). The Supreme Court in Hinck v. United States, 550 U.S. 501, 127 S.Ct. 2011 (2007), held that the Tax Court is the exclusive forum to review an abatement denial. Id. at 506, 127 S.Ct. at 2015. Here, because Karara challenges the IRS denial of his request for abatement under 26 U.S.C. § 6404, the Tax Court is the exclusive forum available to him. See Id. In spite of that clear precedent, Karara argues that the district court is a proper forum because a standard IRS letter that he received states, [i]f you do not wish to use the Appeals Office or disagree with its findings, you may be able to take your case to the U.S. Tax Court, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, or the U.S. District Court where you live. A letter cannot confer jurisdiction that does not otherwise exist. See Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382, 388 99, 59 S.Ct. 292, 295 (1939) ( Where jurisdiction has not been conferred by Congress, no officer of the United States has power to give to any court jurisdiction of a suit against the United States. ), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in 2 Morda v. Klein, 865 F.2d 782, 783 (6th Cir. 1989). AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
