- 15 -
for a year in which it derived no benefit due to the existence of
credits, and those credits later expired unused, the statute of
limitations on refunds could bar recovery by the taxpayer of the
extra tax it had paid in the earlier year. Id. at 182-183; First
Chicago Corp. v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. at 672-673. This Court
held that "no minimum tax is due * * * for the years in which the
then useless preferences arose, but * * * the tax is best imposed
only when, and only to the extent that, petitioner realizes tax
benefits generated by the preferences." First Chicago Corp. v.
Commissioner, 88 T.C. at 668.
First Chicago Corp. is readily distinguishable from the
instant case; perhaps most saliently, section 29(b)(5) played no
role whatsoever in the decision therein.
3. The AMT Differs Markedly From the Add-on Minimum Tax
In their misplaced reliance on First Chicago Corp.,
petitioners also ignore the substantial differences between the
add-on minimum tax at issue in that case and the AMT at issue in
the instant case. In First Chicago Corp. itself this Court
stated: "The 'minimum tax' is to be sharply distinguished from
the 'alternative minimum tax'". First Chicago Corp. v.
Commissioner, 88 T.C. at 668 n.5. These differences overshadow
any similarities, and render the principles set forth in First
Chicago Corp. inapplicable to the matter before us. See United
States v. Deckelbaum, 784 F. Supp. at 1208.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011