- 7 -
The cases before us, however, concern the construction
of existing statutes. The relevant question is not whether,
as an abstract matter, the rule advocated by petitioners
accords with good policy. The question we must consider is
whether the policy petitioners favor is that which Congress
effectuated by its enactment of �6501. Courts are not
authorized to rewrite a statute because they might deem its
effects susceptible of improvement. See TVA v. Hill, 437
U.S. 153, 194-195 (1978). * * *
See Rath v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 196, 200 (1993).
We have noted some circumstances in which the alternative
minimum tax could produce results that may be perceived as
unfair. See, e.g., Kenseth v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 399, 407-
408 (2000), affd. 259 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2001); Klaassen v.
Commissioner, 83 AFTR 2d 99-1750, 99-1 USTC par. 50,418 (10th
Cir. 1999), affg. T.C. Memo. 1998-241.
The Congress did give some consideration to the treatment of
lower-income people. The relevant relief that the Congress chose
is embodied in section 55(d), which provides an exemption amount
of $22,500 for petitioner for 2000.6 We are not free to alter
this amount, or otherwise engage in “wrenching from the words of
* * * [the] statute a meaning which literally they did not bear”
(Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. at 60) in order to achieve the
result petitioner seeks.
6 For 2003 and 2004, the exemption amount for a married
person filing separately is $29,000. Sec. 55(d)(1)(C). We do
not have authority to give even this limited relief any
retroactive effect beyond what the Congress provided. See, e.g.,
Sallies v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 44, 53 n.12 (1984) (and cases
there cited).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011