- 5 - not allowed in the computation of alternative minimum taxable income. Sec. 56(b)(1)(A)(i). The sum of these disallowed items will trigger a liability for the AMT. In petitioner's situation, his unreimbursed employee expenses alone total $60,445.32 (compared to his reported wage income of $43,953.68). Coupled with the other unallowable expenses, specifically spelled out in the statute, petitioner's AMT liability ensues. The AMT serves to impose a tax whenever the sum of specified percentages of the excess of alternative minimum taxable income over the applicable exemption amount exceeds the regular tax for that year. Sec. 55(a), (b)(1)(A), (C), (d)(1); Huntsberry v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 742 (1984). However unfair this statute might seem to petitioner, the Court must apply the law as written. As this Court noted in Hays Corp. v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 436, 443 (1963), affd. 331 F.2d 422 (7th Cir. 1964): "The proper place for a consideration of petitioner's complaint is the halls of Congress, not here." Respondent, therefore, is sustained on this issue. Petitioner argues that he should not be liable for interest on the deficiency, in effect, seeking an abatement of interest. When petitioner filed his return, he reported a zero tax liability and claimed a refund of $10,349.41 from tax withholdings. He argues that he should not be liable for interest on tax he did not know that he owed.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011