- 17 -
D. Petitioner’s Other Arguments
Petitioner raises various other arguments in an attempt to
deduct AMT capital losses recognized in 2001 and carry back
excess AMT capital losses to reduce his 1999 and 2000 AMTI.
Petitioner’s additional arguments can be grouped into three
categories: (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 limit
petitioner’s use of capital losses in the year they are
recognized and do not allow petitioner to carry back his AMT
capital loss. Therefore, 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
additional tax liability.” Thus, petitioner argues the only way
to comply with congressional intent is to allow him to carry back
his AMT capital loss. Throughout his opening brief and reply
brief, petitioner focuses heavily on his interpretation of
congressional intent to support these arguments.
Specifically, petitioner repeatedly references the Senate
report to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, 100 Stat.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011