Robert J. Merlo - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         
               This Court has previously stated:                                      
                    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. * * *                                              
               * * * “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.” * * * the                      
               solution must be with Congress.                                        
          Speltz v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. at 176 (quoting Kenseth v.                 
          Commissioner, 259 F.3d 881, 885 (7th Cir. 2001), affg. 114 T.C.             
          399 (2000)); 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, 747-753 (1984).  Petitioner’s equity and public policy            
          arguments offer no relief from the tax consequences of the AMT              
          Code sections, as outlined above.                                           
               On the basis of the above, we hold that petitioner cannot              
          carry back his AMT capital loss realized in 2001 to reduce his              
          AMTI in 2000.                                                               
               In reaching our holdings, we have considered all arguments             
          made, and, to the extent not mentioned, we conclude that they are           
          moot, irrelevant, or without merit.                                         







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