- 11 -
(i) for any miscellaneous itemized
deduction (as defined in section 67(b))
* * * [Emphasis added.]
Thus, since we have already concluded that the legal
expenses at issue are miscellaneous itemized deductions within
the meaning of section 67(b), it follows that they are not
allowed for purposes of computing petitioners' AMT liability.
Alexander v. Commissioner, supra; sec. 56(b)(1)(A)(i); sec. 1.67-
1T(a)(1)(ii), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 53 Fed. Reg. 9875 (Mar.
28, 1988).
Petitioners acknowledge that section 56(b)(1)(A)(i)
expressly disallows miscellaneous itemized deductions for
purposes of computing AMT. However, petitioners alternatively
assert that the application of the AMT in the instant cases
unfairly creates "a circumstance of double taxation", inasmuch as
petitioners and attorney Howard must pay tax on the same amount
recovered from the defendants. Petitioners' argument on this
score is unavailing. See, e.g., Alexander v. Commissioner, supra
at 947 ("It is well established that equitable arguments cannot
overcome the plain meaning of the statute.").
We hold that petitioners' legal expenses are miscellaneous
itemized deductions subject to disallowance pursuant to section
56(b)(1)(A)(i) for purposes of computing petitioners' AMT
liability for their 1992 taxable years.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011