- 15 -
ATNOL is the same as his NOL, taking into consideration all the
adjustments to his taxable income under sections 56, 57, and 58.
See sec. 56(a)(4), (d)(1). No adjustments under those sections
modify the exclusion of net capital losses from the NOL
computation under section 172(d)(2)(A). Therefore, petitioner’s
net AMT capital loss is excluded for purposes of calculating his
ATNOL deduction. As a result, petitioner’s AMT capital loss
realized in 2001 does not create an ATNOL that can be carried
back to 2000 under sections 56 and 172(b).
D. Petitioner’s Other Arguments
Petitioner raises various other arguments in an attempt to
carry back his 2001 AMT capital loss to reduce his 2000 AMTI.
Petitioner’s additional arguments can be categorized into three
groups: (1) Arguments premised on misinterpretations and
misapplications of the Code sections outlined above; (2)
arguments based on congressional intent; and (3) arguments based
on equity and public policy.
As outlined above, the applicable Code sections do not allow
petitioner to carry back his AMT capital loss, and arguments
misinterpreting and misapplying those sections will not be
addressed individually.
Petitioner asserts that “the intent of Congress in imposing
an AMT tax on deferral preferences [including ISOs] was to
accelerate the taxation of economic income without creating an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011