- 5 -
tax to be 26 percent of this excess, or $3,525. Since the amount
of regular tax reflected on petitioner's return was $1,850,
respondent determined that petitioner was liable for the AMT in
the amount of $1,675, the excess of the tentative minimum tax
over the regular tax reflected on petitioner's return.
As indicated, petitioner argues that, since the AMT was
intended to apply only to wealthier individuals, it should not
apply to him in this instance. Notwithstanding the mathematical
error explained supra note 4, we find no fault with respondent's
application of the AMT provisions or the method by which
respondent computed petitioner's AMT liability. The plain
meaning of the AMT provisions is that the amounts claimed by
petitioner on Schedule A of his return for legal expenses and
real estate taxes paid are not deductible for purposes of
calculating AMTI. Sec. 56(b)(1)(A). Although the results may
seem harsh to petitioner in this case, Congress created the AMT
by enacting the applicable statutory provisions, and we do not
have the authority to disregard a legislative mandate. Alexander
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-51, affd. 72 F.3d 938, 946-947
(1st Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we sustain respondent's
determination.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: May 25, 2011