John Alford, Theo v. Anderson, Robert G. Brown, Normancross, Jr., J.g. Edsall, George P. Foster, Wayne L. Garden,john F. Gray, Susan B. Kennedy, Arthur Mcdonough, Stephen K.mills, Henry H. Modrak, R. Wayne Neal, Richard D. Raines,william R. Reid, Michael J. Renfro, David G. Ritchie, Jamesritchie, R. Clio Robertson, Russell D. Robinson, Kirk M.smith, Robert E. Spann, W.l. Storey, Denise C. Suek, and Raywicker, Petitioners-appellants, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-appellee, 800 F.2d 987 (10th Cir. 1986)

John Alford and twenty-four other taxpayers seek review of an order of the United States Tax Court dismissing for lack of jurisdiction a consolidated petition for redetermination filed in the Tax Court by the twenty-five appellants in this court and some eighty-six other taxpayers. The other eighty-six taxpayers, or most of them, have also appealed the adverse ruling which they suffered in the Tax Court to other Courts of Appeals. Jurisdiction is based on 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). Venue is based on 26 U.S.C. §§ 7482(b) (1) (A) and 7483. The opinion of the Tax Court appears as Abrams v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 1308 (1985).

At issue is whether a letter notice sent to each of the petitioners is a notice of deficiency pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6212(a). See also 26 U.S.C. § 6213. The letter notice advised petitioners that the Internal Revenue Service believed that any deductions or credits derived from investments in a tax shelter known as "Liberty Financial 1983 Government Securities Trading Strategy" were not allowable, and that it planned to review returns claiming such deductions. The letter closed by suggesting that the recipients might want to file an amended tax return for the taxyear 1983 if they had claimed such deduction.¹  In response to this letter, the consolidated petition for redetermination was filed in the Tax Court.

The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, 26 U.S.C. § 7442; Continental Equities, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 551 F.2d 74, 79 (5th Cir. 1977), and the determination of a deficiency and the issuance of a notice of deficiency are absolute preconditions to Tax Court jurisdiction. Rule 13, Rules of Practice and Procedure of the United States Tax Court; Laing v. United States, 423 U.S. 161, 165 n. 4, 96 S. Ct. 473, 477 n. 4, 46 L. Ed. 2d 416 (1976). Accordingly, if the letter notice is not a notice of deficiency, the Tax Court had no jurisdiction to hear the petition for redetermination. No particular form is required for a statutory notice of deficiency. Commissioner v. Forest Glen Creamery Co., 98 F.2d 968, 971 (7th Cir. 1938); Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 646, 655-56 (1982); Scar v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 855, 860 (1983). Although a notice need not contain any particulars or explanation as to how the deficiencies were determined, it must set forth the amount of the deficiency and the tax year involved to meet the requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 6212(a). 81 T.C. at 860-61; Commissioner v. Stewart, 186 F.2d 239, 241-42 (6th Cir. 1951); Foster v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 34, 229-30 (1983), aff'd in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 756 F.2d 1430 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S. Ct. 793, 88 L. Ed. 2d 770 (1986).

The Tax Court held that the notice was not a notice of deficiency. We agree. We are in complete accord with both the general reasoning of the Tax Court and the result reached. As far as we are presently advised, all other circuit courts considering this matter have reached the same conclusion as we. See Donley v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 383 (5th Cir. 1986); Spector v. Commissioner, 790 F.2d 51 (8th Cir. 1986); Benzvi v. Commissioner, 787 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir. 1986); and Abrams v. Commissioner, 787 F.2d 939 (4th Cir. 1986).² 

Judgment affirmed.