Estate of Clifford C. Haugen - Page 4

                                        - 3 -                                         

          section 1301 precludes applicability of the alternative minimum             
          tax under section 55; alternatively, if section 55 is applicable,           
          whether the "regular tax" in section 55(a)(2), which offsets the            
          tentative minimum tax under section 55(a)(1), means the tax                 
          calculated under section 1, without the benefit of income                   
          averaging under section 1301.                                               
               This case was submitted fully stipulated under Rule 122.               
          The agreed facts and the attached exhibits are so found and are             
          incorporated herein by reference.  At the time of his death, Mr.            
          Haugen was a resident of Lewistown, Montana.  At the time the               
          petition was filed, Mrs. Haugen was a legal resident of                     
          Lewistown, Montana.4                                                        
               Petitioners were in the cattle ranching business.  They                
          owned and operated a 7,000-acre cattle ranch near Lewistown,                
          Montana, for nearly 30 years.  Shortly after Mr. Haugen's death             
          in 1998, petitioner, Mrs. Haugen, began liquidation of the                  
          business by selling the ranch and the assets used in its                    
          operation.                                                                  
               A joint Federal income tax return was filed by petitioners             
          for 1998.  The tax shown on that return was $74,977, based on the           
          income-averaging provisions of section 1301.  The return included           


               4    Since the facts are not in dispute, the Court decides             
          this case without regard to which party bears the burden of                 
          proof.  Sec. 7491, therefore, is not applicable in this case.               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011