¶2 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.
¶3 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).
¶4 We deny Ryskamp’s motions filed on June 17,2011 and June 20, 2011.
¶5 AFFIRMED.