- 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