Whether the Tax Court's jurisdictional requirements for challenging IRS notices and collection actions violate a taxpayer's due process rights when the taxpayer claims lack of proper notice

No question identified. : Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denying panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in Case No. 23-3108, Smalis v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Order of En Banc attached Exhibit “A”. I). JURISDICTION AND TIME LIMIT Jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is currently due January 3, 2026. Ill. REASONS FOR EXTENSION Petitioner has undergone and continues to undergo serious medical treatment and surgeries which substantially impair his ability to prepare a Petition for Certiorari. Postsurgical recovery, pain, and medication side effects significantly limit sustained legal research and drafting. Attached medical Exbibit “B” medical, reinjury’s, dates of surgery & documentation of neurosurgeon Dr. David Hamilton MD of UPMC Neurological Institute -Presbyterian. Petitioner is proceeding pro se in a complex constitutional case involving due process violations and federal jurisdictional issues. Additional time is necessary to ensure proper presentation. This is Petitioner's first request for an extension and no prejudice will result to Respondent. IV. LENGTH OF EXTENSION REQUESTED Petitioner respectfully requests a ninety (90) day extension, making the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari due April 3, 2026. “nace dean WY dL The the Anastasios M. Smalis Petitioner, Pro Se 6652 Northumberland Street Pittsburgh PA 15217 412 303 5564 Date: December 17, 2025 Case: 23-3108 Document:38 Page:1 Date Filed: 12/18/2024 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 23-3108 ANASTASIOS M. SMALIS, Petitioner Vv. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE On Appeal from the United States Tax Court (U.S. Tax Court No. 21-5882) Tax Court Judge: Honorable Travis A. Greaves Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 21, 2024 Before: RESTREPO, MATEY, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: December 18, 2024) OPINION* PER CURIAM Anastasios Smalis appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s dismissal of his petition for lack of jurisdiction and the denial of his motion to vacate or revise the decision. We will affirm. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.0.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Case: 23-3108 Document:38 Page:2 Date Filed: 12/18/2024 I. In 2021, Smalis filed a petition in the Tax Court to challenge Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) actions allegedly taken for his 1992 tax deficiencies. He challenged a notice of deficiency, a notice of determination concerning a collection action, a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement, and a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability. He claimed that the IRS improperly mailed notices to a prior address even though he submitted a change of address form in 1995, that he was deprived of adequate notice in violation of due process, and that the IRS abused its discretion by refiling a lien. Smalis did not attach any of the alleged notices to his petition. Instead, he attached a balance reminder from the IRS. He also provided a Collection Appeal Request form he completed in 2016. And he submitted records showing that in May 2017, the IRS issued notice of a federal tax lien for the tax period ending in 1992, assessed in 1994. Additionally, he attached his 2020 Social Security Benefit statement showing a garnishment or levy on his benefits. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Commissioner stated that the IRS had not sent Smalis any of the alleged notices he purported to challenge in his petition, and that Smalis had not produced any notice or determination sufficient to confer the Tax Court with jurisdiction. In response, Smalis argued that the IRS violated due process by seizing his assets without providing him adequate notice and an opportunity to dispute his liability. Case: 23-3108 Document:38 Page:3 Date Filed: 12/18/2024 The Tax Court concluded it lacke