Noman Earl Holly - Page 5

                                        - 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                      
               To reflect the foregoing,                                              
                                                  Decision will be entered            
                                             under Rule 155.                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  

Last modified: May 25, 2011