- 20 -
Petitioners have submitted materials from congressional,
Taxpayer Advocate, and bar association sources, dealing with a
widespread perception that application of the AMT to ISOs is
unfair and should be the subject of redress. Respondent argues
that petitioners did not raise efficient tax administration as a
ground in their original offer in compromise and that we should
not consider materials beyond the administrative record. The
Court has indicated that we are not confined to the
administrative record. Robinette v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 85,
94-104 (2004). However, most of the material that petitioners
attached to their filings is not part of the administrative
record, is not admissible evidence, and was in large part
generated subsequent to the notice of determination that is the
basis of this case. Such material does not show that there was
an abuse of discretion by the Appeals officer when the notice of
determination was sent on August 12, 2003. See Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 612 (2000).
Petitioners’ materials, in any event, could support
arguments both for and against petitioners’ position.
Petitioners assert that those materials show “public policy”. In
our view, however, those materials show that Congress is well
aware of the claimed inequities resulting from the application of
the AMT and has, so far, declined to act. In the absence of
congressional action, we cannot discern public policy from the
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011