- 13 -
Constitutionality of AMT
Petitioner cryptically questioned the constitutionality of
the AMT provisions.6 Petitioner did not specify how the AMT is
unconstitutional beyond saying that nonresident Americans are
treated differently from resident American citizens. We have
already determined that the AMT Code sections and, specifically,
the foreign tax credit limitation of section 59, are
constitutional. See Keese v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-417
(finding the AMT Code sections, including the foreign tax credit
limitation, constitutional); Estate of Kearns v. Commissioner, 73
T.C. 1223 (1980); Buttke v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 677 (1979),
affd. per curiam 625 F.2d 202 (8th Cir. 1980); Kolom v.
Commissioner, 71 T.C. 235 (1978), affd. 644 F.2d 1282 (9th Cir.
1981).
In another attempt to avoid the AMT, petitioner also
characterized it as an unconstitutional poll tax. A poll tax is
a tax of a given amount, levied upon every person in a
jurisdiction's taxing power, without reference to the person's
property, income, or ability to pay. Black's Law Dictionary 1159
6 Petitioner chose not to explain his position on the
question of constitutionality. He reasoned that it would be more
appropriate to present his views to the Court of Appeals. We
find this curious because the Court of Appeals to which
petitioner would likely proceed has already affirmed our holdings
on similar issues. See Lindsey v. Commissioner, 15 F.3d 1160
(D.C. Cir. 1994).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011