
    John Henry RYSKAMP, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-73104.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 20, 2013.
    John Henry Ryskamp, Berkeley, CA, pro se.
    Kenneth W. Rosenberg, John A. Dicicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
    
      Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

John Henry Ryskamp appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo, Gorospe v. Comm’r, 451 F.3d 966, 968 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

The Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because Ryskamp was never issued a notice of deficiency or a notice of determination. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6213(a), 6330(d); see also Gorospe, 451 F.3d at 968 (the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and its subject matter jurisdiction is defined by Title 26 of the United States Code); Abrams v. Comm’r, 814 F.2d 1356, 1356-57 (9th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (holding that a pre-filing notification letter from the Internal Revenue Service was not a notice of deficiency, and therefore the Tax Court had no jurisdiction over the taxpayer’s petition).

We deny Ryskamp’s motions filed on June 17,2011 and June 20, 2011.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     