- 3 -
Taxable income reported by petitioner $21,569
Refunded taxes included in gross income by petitioner (1,824)
Exemption deduction claimed by petitioner 2,800
Miscellaneous itemized deductions claimed by petitioner 27,057
Itemized deduction for taxes paid claimed by petitioner 5,445
Alternative minimum taxable income under sec. 55(b)(2)155,047
Exemption amount pursuant to sec. 55(d)(1)(B) (33,750)
Taxable excess under sec. 55(b)(1)(A)(ii) 21,297
Tentative minimum tax under sec. 55(b)(1)(A)(i) (in this
case equal to 26% of the taxable excess) 5,537
Regular tax under sec. 55(c)(1) as reported by petitioner (3,236)
AMT liability under sec. 55(a) 2,301
1The adjustments to taxable income required in this case to
calculate alternative minimum taxable income are found, respectively, in
sec. 56(b)(1)(D) and (E) and (A)(i) and (ii).
There are no facts relevant to this calculation other than those
underlying the items that petitioner himself reported on his tax
return. Thus, there are no disputed relevant facts.
Petitioner has set forth various arguments as to why he
should not be liable for the AMT. In these arguments, he calls
into question the integrity and fairness of this Court,1 and he
makes various generalized assertions that respondent and the IRS
acted inappropriately, both with respect to him and with respect
1For example, petitioner asserts that respondent and the
Court have engaged in improper ex parte communications in a
collusive effort to undermine petitioner’s case. Petitioner’s
primary support for this argument lies in two letters which
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Appeals officers sent to
petitioner. The first letter notified petitioner that the IRS
Appeals Office was reviewing his case, and the second letter
requested that petitioner settle the case by signing a stipulated
decision document. Because the letters were sent to petitioner
after he filed the petition in this case (and because the second
letter was dated on the same date as the Court’s Notice Setting
Case For Trial), petitioner interprets these letters to indicate
the existence of ex parte communications. However, we find
nothing in the letters suggesting ex parte communications; the
letters merely represent a proper attempt by the IRS Appeals
Office to resolve this case before trial.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011