Jimmy L. and Nita N. Thompson - Page 7

                                        - 6 -                                         
          See, e.g., Okin v. Commissioner, supra, (income averaging);                 
          Huntsberry v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 742, 749-751 (1984) (jobs tax           
          credit); Freeman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-254                       
          (miscellaneous itemized deductions), affd. 56 Fed. Appx. 842 (9th           
          Cir. 2003); Keese v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-416 (foreign             
          tax credit); Bettner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-453 (long-            
          term capital gain deduction).                                               
               As the Court said in Freeman v. Commissioner, supra, “even             
          if we agreed with petitioners that the application of the                   
          alternative minimum tax produces an inequitable result in this              
          case, it is not for us to change that result.  It is well                   
          established that such an equitable argument cannot overcome the             
          plain meaning of the statute.”                                              
          Issue 2.  “No Change” Letter                                                
               Petitioners raised another issue after their petition was              
          filed.  Petitioners claim they received a “no change” letter                
          dated July 1, 2002, stating that they did not owe additional tax            
          for the year at issue.  Respondent’s position is that the letter            
          was sent to petitioners to notify them that a premature                     
          assessment had been abated.2                                                
               Petitioners were required by section 6213(a) to file their             


               2Respondent’s “no change” letter of July 1, 2002, to                   
          petitioner wife was followed by respondent’s letter of Dec. 9,              
          2002, to petitioner husband, which more clearly explained that              
          the premature assessment had been abated.                                   





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011