Ronald M. Brooke - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                         
          tentative minimum tax minus the foreign tax credit, is $12,186.             
          Because he had no additional regular tax due, petitioner would              
          owe $12,186 for 1992.                                                       
               In his challenge of the deficiency determined by respondent,           
          petitioner does not question respondent’s calculation of the AMT.           
          Instead, he contends that the AMT violates the double tax                   
          prohibition found in the U.S.-Germany tax treaty.  See Convention           
          for the Avoidance of Double Taxation, Aug. 29, 1989, U.S.-                  
          Germany, art. 23, 30 I.L.M. 1778, 1779 (the U.S.-Germany treaty).           
          This was the same argument made in Pekar v. Commissioner, 113               
          T.C. 158 (1999).  In that case, we found that the treaty                    
          provision had been written to allow for the preexisting                     
          alternative minimum tax provision in section 59.  See id. at 163-           
          164.  The treaty provision, which was written 5 years after                 
          section 59 was enacted, states that the double taxation                     
          prohibition is “‘subject to the limitations of the law of the               
          United States.’”  Id. at 163 (quoting the U.S.-Germany treaty,              
          art. 23(1)).  Because the treaty provision may be read in harmony           
          with the AMT provision, petitioner is not excused from liability            
          for the AMT.                                                                
               Petitioner also disputes respondent’s determination that a             
          section 6662(a) negligence penalty should be applied.  Petitioner           
          contends that he should not be subject to the section 6662(a)               
          negligence penalty because he relied on the advice of a Judge               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011