- 3 -
the tax liability shown on petitioners’ return ($32,335.55) and
the AMT liability ($1,222). Petitioners negotiated the refund
check. Subsequently, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to
petitioners determining a deficiency of $1,341 that reflects an
AMT liability of $1,341. In correspondence between petitioners
and respondent, respondent explained that while respondent
received the AMT payment of $1,222, petitioners also received a
refund of $1,341, and they were still liable for the AMT.
Petitioners concede for the taxable year 2000 they had an
AMT liability of $1,222.2 As we understand, however, they
contend that they paid that liability, and, therefore, respondent
is precluded from determining the AMT in the notice of
deficiency. As we further understand, the factual predicate for
this argument is that the correspondence accompanying the refund
check makes no reference to the AMT and the refund may have been
due to other unknown adjustments. Petitioners do not point to
any other adjustments that could have produced the refund.
Moreover, we note that the amount of the refund is the exact
amount of the mathematical error and the AMT liability. In sum,
this position is disingenuous.
Nonetheless, it does appear that an adjustment should be
made. Respondent determined a deficiency of $1,341. That amount
appears to include the mathematical error respondent determined
2 Petitioners do not satisfy the requirements of sec. 7491(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011