Jack and Janet Freeman - Page 23




                                       - 23 -                                         
             minimum tax in the amount of the excess.  See sec. 55(a).                
             See generally Benci-Woodward v. Commissioner, supra at 994               
             (holding that legal expenses are classified as                           
             miscellaneous itemized deductions and, as such, are not                  
             allowed as deductions for purposes of computing alternative              
             minimum tax liability).                                                  
                  In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined                  
             that petitioners are liable for alternative minimum tax of               
             $52,303.  This was based upon the treatment of attorneys'                
             fees of $194,595 as an additional miscellaneous itemized                 
             deduction.  As mentioned above, the parties agree that                   
             the attorneys' fees, to be treated as an additional                      
             miscellaneous itemized deduction, are $129,698.70, rather                
             than $194,595.                                                           
                  Petitioners do not take issue with respondent's                     
             computation of the amount of alternative minimum tax in                  
             this case.  They argue:                                                  

                       THE FAILURE OF THE ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM                         
                       TAX TO ALLOW A DEDUCTION FOR ATTORNEYS                         
                       FEES AND COSTS, WHICH RESULTS IN A                             
                       DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME INCOME TO                          
                       PETITIONER AND HIS ATTORNEYS, [IS] A                           
                       VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS                         
                       OF PETITIONER IN THAT IT IS A TAKING                           
                       WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND A DENIAL                        
                       OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW IN                          
                       VIOLATION OF THE 5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT                        
                       [sic] TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.                             







Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011