Roy E. and Linda Day - Page 17

                                                - 17 -                                                   
            preference items.  Stated otherwise, the taxpayer in such a case                             
            theoretically could have avoided payment of the add-on minimum                               
            tax by simply not claiming the items of tax preference.                                      
                  First Chicago Corp. resolved this anomaly by holding that if                           
            a taxpayer did report such items, and they resulted in no                                    
            immediate tax benefit, they would not increase the add-on minimum                            
            tax for that year.  First Chicago Corp. v. Commissioner, 842 F.2d                            
            at 183. No such anomaly is present in cases involving the AMT.                               
            In contrast to the add-on minimum tax at issue in First Chicago                              
            Corp., a taxpayer cannot avoid AMT liability simply by failing to                            
            claim preferences.                                                                           
                  There is another important distinction between First Chicago                           
            Corp., which involved section 58(h), and the instant case.                                   
            Whereas section 58(h) was mandatory even in the absence of                                   
            implementing regulations, the application of section 59(g) lies                              
            at the discretion of the Secretary.  See First Chicago Corp. v.                              
            Commissioner, 88 T.C. at 669, 676 n.11.  Unlike our decision in                              
            First Chicago, where the Court reluctantly felt it necessary to                              
            do the Secretary's job, the discretionary nature of section 59(g)                            
            relieves us of that awkward responsibility.  First Chicago Corp.                             
            v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. at 669, 671, 676-677.                                               
            4.  Petitioners Received a Current Tax Benefit from Tax                                      
            Preference Items                                                                             
                  Finally, if the Court were to sanction petitioners'                                    
            computation of AMTI, petitioners' tax liabilities would                                      

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