Petitioner Richard Abrams and 33 other taxpayers appeal the United States Tax Court's dismissal of their consolidated petition for redetermination of tax deficiencies for the year 1983, 84 T.C. 1308. The only issue we decide is whether the Tax Court correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that a prefiling notification letter was not a notice of deficiency. We affirm.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sent Abrams a letter,1 known as a pre-filing notification, advising him that the tax shelter in which he had invested was not a proper basis for tax deductions or credits. The letter, dated November 2, 1984, also stated that the IRS planned to review Abrams' tax return for such deductions and credits, and that if an examination resulted in adjustments to his return, he would be given the opportunity to exercise his right to appeal. If Abrams had already filed his return with such deductions or credits, the letter suggested that he may wish to file an amended return. The letter did not state that the IRS had made a determination of Abrams' tax deficiency. In response to the letter, Abrams filed a petition for redetermination in the Tax Court, which dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction.

We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. McIntyre v. United States, 789 F.2d 1408, 1410 (9th Cir.1986).

The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Its jurisdiction is invoked only when the IRS issues a notice of deficiency. See 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7442; Laing v. United States, 423 U.S. 161, 165 n. 4, 96 S. Ct. 473, 477 n. 4, 46 L. Ed. 2d 416 (1976); DaBoul v. Commissioner, 429 F.2d 38, 38 (9th Cir.1970). Although there is no prescribed form for a deficiency notice, Donley v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 383, 384 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S. Ct. 277, 93 L. Ed. 2d 253 (1986), the notice must at a minimum advise the taxpayer that his tax return is deficient for a particular year and specify the amount of the deficiency or provide the information necessary to compute the deficiency. Id. at 384-385; Commissioner v. Stewart, 186 F.2d 239, 242 (6th Cir.1951); Olsen v. Helvering, 88 F.2d 650, 651 (2d Cir.1937).

The letter Abrams received made it clear his return had not been reviewed and that no deficiency had been determined. Furthermore, no information was provided to compute the deficiency. The fact the letter was received after Abrams filed his tax return is irrelevant for purposes of determining whether the letter was a notice of deficiency. We join the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits in concluding that the letter did not constitute such a notice. See Neal v. Commissioner, No. 85-4147 (2nd Cir. March 17, 1985) (unpublished order); Abrams v. Commissioner, 787 F.2d 939 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S. Ct. 271, 93 L. Ed. 2d 248 (1986); Donley v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 383; Gaska v. Commissioner, 800 F.2d 633 (6th Cir.1986); Spector v. Commissioner, 790 F.2d 51 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S. Ct. 274, 93 L. Ed. 2d 250 (1986); Benzvi v. Commissioner, 787 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S. Ct. 273, 93 L. Ed. 2d 250 (1986).

As the pre-filing notification letter was not a notice of deficiency, the Tax Court had no jurisdiction and the petition was properly dismissed.

AFFIRMED.