Where no determination of federal tax liability has been made by the IRS and the court of appeals has ruled patently contrary to this court's decision in Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv., 139 8.Ct. 1853 (2019) and contrary to its own precedent in United States v. Green, 735 F.2d 1203 (9th Cir. 1984) and United States v. Batson, 608 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 2010), does such a radical departure from binding precedent warrant Supreme Court's supervisory intervention to confine trial courts' jurisdiction in criminal tax cases to those functions delegated to Congress by the Sixteenth Amendment, which does not include the authority to ascertain, compute, and collect federal income taxes through restitution, as that activity is statutorily relegated to the Dept. of Treasury, but which nation wide practice routinely deprives criminal defendants of equal protection and due process of law?

QUESTION PRESENTED Where no determination of federal tax liability has been made by the IRS and the court of appeals has ruled patently contrary to this court's decision in Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv., 139 8.Ct. 1853 (2019) and contrary to its own precedent in United States v. Green, 735 F.2d 1203 (9th Cir. 1984) and United States v. Batson, 608 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 2010), does such a radical departure from binding precedent warrant Supreme Court's supervisory intervention to confine trial courts’ jurisdiction in criminal tax cases to those functions delegated to Congress by the Sixteenth Amendment, which does not include the authority to ascertain, compute, and collect federal income taxes through restitution, as that activity is statutorily relegated to the Dept. of Treasury, but which nation wide practice routinely deprives criminal defendants of equal protection and due process of law?