Sandra R. Murray and Khaled M. Abouelnoor - Page 11

                                       - 10 -                                         
          taxable income for the taxable year determined with the                     
          adjustments provided in section 56 and increased by the amount of           
          items of tax preference described in section 57.  As stated                 
          earlier, petitioners did not have any items of tax preference as            
          defined by section 57.  The items of tax preference, however, are           
          only one part of the AMT computation.  See Huntsberry v.                    
          Commissioner, 83 T.C. 742, 744-745 (1984) (tax preferences play a           
          part in computing alternative minimum tax, but a taxpayer may be            
          liable for the AMT even though he may not have any tax                      
          preferences).  More significantly, although many of the                     
          adjustments provided in section 56 do not apply to petitioners,             
          there are five adjustments that clearly apply here, the largest             
          of which is petitioners’ miscellaneous deductions that increase             
          their alternative minimum taxable income by $55,503.  See sec.              
          56(b)(1)(A)(i).                                                             
               However unfair this statute might seem to petitioners, the             
          Court is bound to apply the law as written.  See Estate of Cowser           
          v. Commissioner, 736 F.2d 1168, 1171-1174 (7th Cir. 1984), affg.            
          80 T.C. 783 (1983).  Accordingly, the statutory provisions of               
          section 55 impose the AMT of $2,747.  We therefore sustain                  
          respondent’s determination on this issue.                                   
               Petitioners argue, however, that respondent should be                  
          estopped from assessing a deficiency for 2002 because respondent            







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011