- 18 -
their ability to use tax preferences, and, accordingly, the AMT
is not applicable in this instance because petitioners paid over
$70,000 in Federal income tax for the year at issue. This
argument is also without merit. If a taxpayer is subject to the
regular tax, the taxpayer is also subject to the AMT. Sec.
55(b)(2). However harsh and unfair the AMT may seem to
petitioners, Congress enacted the law, and we have no authority
to disregard the AMT Code provisions. See Holly v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1998-55.
Interest Abatement
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may
exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by
Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985).
Whether this Court has jurisdiction is fundamental and may be
raised by a party or on the Court’s own motion. Fernandez v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 324, 328 (2000); Naftel v. Commissioner,
supra at 530.
Consistent with section 6404(g)(1), the Court’s jurisdiction
depends on a valid final determination letter and a timely filed
petition for review. See Rule 280(b); Gati v. Commissioner, 113
T.C. 132, 134 (1999); White v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 96, 98
(1997). The Commissioner’s final determination letter “is a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011