- 13 -
discussed above, to hold that they are liable for the AMT as
determined by respondent in the notice of deficiency.6
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
To reflect our disposition of the disputed issue,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
6 Petitioners should regard as their good fortune the fact
that respondent did not determine AMT for 2001 if, as suggested
by petitioners, they claimed significant State and local income
taxes and real estate taxes on their return for that year. In
this regard, suffice it to say that the Commissioner’s acceptance
of a taxpayer’s return for a prior year does not estop or
otherwise preclude the Commissioner from raising the issue in a
return for a subsequent year. E.g., Ekren v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1986-509 (and cases cited at n.6).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Last modified: May 25, 2011