Mark Spitz - Page 17

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011