Kevin Clare and Sarah Louise Moore - Page 3




                                        - 2 -                                         
               Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal             
          income tax of $6,969 for the taxable year 2002.  The issues for             
          decision are whether petitioners are subject to the alternative             
          minimum tax provided by section 55 and interest on the liability            
          at issue.                                                                   
                                     Background                                       
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are                      
          incorporated herein by this reference.  At the time the petition            
          was filed, petitioners resided in Columbia, Missouri.                       
               Petitioners reported adjusted gross income of $405,807,                
          including a long-term capital gain of $342,263, on their 2002               
          Federal Income Tax return.  They computed tax on the capital gain           
          at the maximum capital gains tax rate for 2002, 20 percent.  They           
          did not, however, compute or report alternative minimum tax.                
          Respondent sent petitioners a notice of deficiency in which                 
          respondent determined that petitioners were subject to                      
          alternative minimum tax on the long-term capital gain resulting             
          in a deficiency in the amount of $6,969.                                    
               After receiving the notice of deficiency, petitioners                  
          contacted the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) local office,                
          where they reviewed the figures on their 2002 return with an                
          agent.  It was during this phone call that petitioners believed             
          that there was a discrepancy between the figures in the IRS’s               







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007