- 6 - 55(d)(1)(C). This operation resulted in petitioner’s “taxable excess” being $16,207. Sec. 55(b)(1)(A)(ii). To this amount respondent applied a 26-percent tax rate. Sec. 55(b)(1)(A)(i)(I). This operation resulted in petitioner’s tentative minimum tax being $4,214, which, as we noted supra, becomes petitioner’s alternative minimum tax. In its unanimous opinion in Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55, 60 (1930), the Supreme Court gave us the following advice as to tax statutes: Courts have sometimes exercised a high degree of ingenuity in the effort to find justification for wrenching from the words of a statute a meaning which literally they did not bear in order to escape consequences thought to be absurd or to entail great hardship. But an application of the principle so nearly approaches the boundary between the exercise of the judicial power and that of the legislative power as to call rather for great caution and circumspection in order to avoid usurpation of the latter. Monson v. Chester, 22 Pick. 385, 387. It is not enough merely that hard and objectionable or absurd consequences, which probably were not within the contemplation of the framers, are produced by an act of legislation. Laws enacted with good intention, when put to the test, frequently, and to the surprise of the law maker himself, turn out to be mischievous, absurd, or otherwise objectionable. But in such case the remedy lies with the law making authority, and not with the courts. See In re Alma Spinning Company, L.R. 16 Ch. Div. 681, 686; King v. Commissioner, 5 A. & E. 804, 816; Abley v. Dale, L.J. (1851) N.S. Pt. 2, Vol. 20, 233, 235. And see generally Chung Fook v. White, 264 U.S. 443, 445; Commr. of Immigration v. Gottlieb, 265 U.S. 310, 313. More recently, the Supreme Court’s almost-unanimous opinion in Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386, 398 (1984), told us the following about tax statutes:Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011