- 3 -
should not be required to pay the deficiency because of the
unfairness of the alternative minimum tax.
Discussion
Petitioners’ sole challenge to the proposed deficiency is
that the alternative minimum tax, as applied to them, is
inherently unfair. At trial, petitioners argued that although
they know that the Court has no authority to usurp the role of
the Congress, they would like the Court nonetheless to relieve
them of their Federal income tax obligations so as to ‘make a
statement’ that would spawn a thorough and complete legislative
review of the alternative minimum tax.
The Court has consistently and repeatedly rejected
challenges to proposed deficiencies based on the fairness of the
alternative minimum tax. Kenseth v. Commissioner, 259 F.3d 881
(7th Cir. 2001), affg. 114 T.C. 399 (2000); Merlo v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-178; see also 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 (1984).
Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s proposed deficiency.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011