Roy E. and Linda Day - Page 15

                                                - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011