James A. and Nancy B. Wiese - Page 12

                                       - 11 -                                         
          stock acquired upon the exercise of those options subsequently              
          lost all of its value.  The taxpayers argued that under those               
          circumstances, application of the AMT was unfair.  Although not             
          unsympathetic to the taxpayers’ plight, the Court responded, id.            
          at 176, as follows:                                                         
                    The unfortunate consequences of the AMT in various                
               circumstances have been litigated since shortly after                  
               the adoption of the AMT. In many different contexts,                   
               literal application of the AMT has led to a perceived                  
               hardship, but challenges based on equity have been                     
               uniformly rejected.  See, e.g., Alexander v.                           
               Commissioner, 72 F.3d 938 (1st Cir. 1995), affg. T.C.                  
               Memo. 1995-51; Okin v. Commissioner, 808 F.2d 1338 (9th                
               Cir. 1987), affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-199; Warfield v.                     
               Commissioner, 84 T.C. 179 (1985); Huntsberry v.                        
               Commissioner, 83 T.C. 742, 747-753 (1984); Prosman v.                  
               Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-87; Klaassen v.                          
               Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-241, affd. without                       
               published opinion 182 F.3d 932 (10th Cir. 1999).                       
                    In Kenseth v. Commissioner, 259 F.3d 881, 885 (7th                
               Cir. 2001), affg. 114 T.C. 399 (2000), the Court of                    
               Appeals for the Seventh Circuit commented:                             
                    it is not a feasible judicial undertaking to                      
                    achieve global equity in taxation * * * .                         
                    And if it were a feasible judicial                                
                    undertaking, it still would not be a proper                       
                    one, equity in taxation being a political                         
                    rather than a jural concept. * * *                                
                        *     *     *     *     *     *     *                         
               We believe that here, too, the solution must be with                   
               Congress.                                                              
          *     *     *     *     *     *     *                                       
               Petitioners’ 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.                                                                   






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011