- 18 -
the current AMT regime supports the treatment of that regime as a
system that is parallel to the regular tax regime.
Were we to adopt the parties’ contention that the regular
tax and AMT regimes are parallel systems, we would be inclined to
agree with petitioners that the section 280C(a) wage-expense
limitation does not enter into the calculation of AMTI. Because
a TJC is not determined in the calculation of AMT, the amount of
disallowed wages under section 280C(a) would appear to be zero
for purposes of the AMT regime. Moreover, even if a credit were
determined for that purpose, although it could not be applied, we
know of no reason (nor has respondent suggested one) that would
prevent petitioners, given the de novo calculation of AMTI that
flows from the parallel systems, from electing under section
51(j) to forgo that credit in the AMT regime in order to claim as
a deduction Foods’ full wage expense. We decline to adopt the
parties’ parallel system contention, however, because, as
discussed herein, the plain and unambiguous text of the statutes
(and the related legislative history) disproves that contention.
As to petitioners, they concede that a plain reading of the
relevant statutory provisions fails to distinguish between
taxable income for regular tax purposes and taxable income for
AMT purpose. Petitioners ask the Court to draw such a
distinction pointing solely to two sentences from the General
Explanation of the 1986 Act, one sentence in the preamble to
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011