Nancy Sjodin appeals from an order of the tax court holding that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had not abused its discretion in denying Sjodin innocent spouse relief under the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6015(f).' We need not consider the merits of Sjodin’s claim for relief because we conclude that the tax court lacked jurisdiction over her petition for review.

Sjodin filed joint tax returns with her husband for tax years 1987, 1988, 1990, and 1992, each of which “reflected tax due which was not paid at the time of filing.” The IRS did not assess deficiencies against the Sjodins for any of these tax years. Sjodin petitioned the IRS for innocent spouse relief from the unpaid tax liability under 26 U.S.C. § 6015(f) (taking into account all facts and circumstances, Secretary may relieve taxpayer of liability if it is inequitable to hold individual hable for unpaid tax or any deficiency, and relief is not available under subsection (b) or (c)), and in April 2003, the IRS issued a Notice of Determination denying her request. Sjo-din appealed that decision to the tax court, which concluded on the merits that the IRS had not abused its discretion in denying Sjodin relief. Sjodin appealed the tax court decision to this court.

This circuit has recently concluded that the issuance of a deficiency by the IRS is a prerequisite for tax court jurisdiction over

*360 a petition for review from an IRS determination regarding relief available under § 6015. See 26 U.S.C. § 6015(e)(1); Bartman v. Comm’r, 446 F.3d 785, 787-88 (8th Cir. 2006) (under § 6015(e), tax court lacks jurisdiction over petition for review from an IRS determination regarding availability of § 6015(f) relief, unless deficiency has been asserted against taxpayer); see also Comm’r v. Ewing, 439 F.3d 1009, 1012-14 (9th Cir. 2006) (same). Thus, we vacate the tax court’s decision and remand with instructions that it dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Bartman, 446 F.3d 785, 788 (vacating tax court’s finding that petitioner’s claim regarding one tax year at issue was time-barred because court lacked jurisdiction over issue).’