- 8 -
The minimum tax credit and the alternative minimum tax
limitation on business credits are both applicable to this case
because, depending on which credit the Holloways are claiming,
one or the other will apply. The section 29 credit (now the
section 45K credit) was one of the additional credits included in
the minimum tax credit in 2002. Sec. 53(d)(1)(B)(iii). If the
Holloways’ credit were a section 29 credit, any part of it
greater than the excess of their adjusted regular income tax over
their tentative minimum tax would become part of their minimum
tax credit. Id. If their credit were a section 43 credit, it
would be the alternative minimum tax’s limits on business
credits, as described above, that would apply and limit it.
But whether their credit fed into the minimum tax credit or
the general business tax credit part of the whole alternative
minimum tax scheme, the Holloways would first have to calculate
their tentative minimum tax and adjusted regular income tax for
the 2002 tax year to determine how much credit is available to
them. It was their failure to do this that caused the
Commissioner’s computers to spit out a math error notice--and the
Holloways do not contest the Commissioner’s arithmetic. They
concede that without a special rule that reduces their tentative
minimum tax, the Commissioner is correct and they are limited in
the amount of credit they can take. However, they point to three
sections of the Code which they believe apply to their situation:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011