- 5 - 55(b)(1)(A). The amount of the corrected regular tax being $5,779, respondent determined, pursuant to section 55(a), that petitioners are liable for AMT of $3,122. Petitioners argue that the AMT is unfair because it subjects them to double taxation. The Court would observe that application of the AMT to petitioners’ 1998 income does not subject them to double taxation; what the AMT does is defeat petitioners’ reasonable expectations by depriving them of most of the tax reduction their allowable personal exemptions, miscellaneous itemized deductions, and State and local taxes would otherwise entitle them to. Although the AMT was originally enacted by Congress “to remedy taxpayer distrust of the system growing from large numbers of taxpayers with large incomes who were paying no taxes”, Okin v. Commissioner, 808 F.2d 1338, 1342 (9th Cir. 1987), affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-199, petitioners are part of the growing number of middle-income people already paying income tax whose liability therefor is being increased by the AMT. See, e.g., Editorial, “Fix a Real Tax Problem”, Wash. Post, May 28, 2003, at A18; Herman, Tax Report, “An Ignored Time Bomb: Alternative Minimum Tax”, Wall St. J., May 15, 2003, at D2. However, it remains well established that the AMT’s dilution of otherwise available tax benefits does not invalidate the AMT.1 1Cf. Job 1:21 (King James) (“the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord”).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011