- 3 -
difference of $945.88. On February 13, 2006, respondent issued
to petitioners a notice of deficiency in which he determined a
deficiency of $1,355.44, which included $1,352 in AMT.4
Discussion
As a general rule, the Commissioner’s determinations set
forth in a notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the
taxpayer bears the burden of proving that these determinations
are in error. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115
(1933).5
Petitioners argue that they are liable for only $404 of AMT.
The difference between respondent’s and petitioners’ AMT
calculations is approximately equal to the reduction by
respondent in the amount of petitioners’ claimed refund.6
Petitioners contend that this reduction in their claimed refund
should be added to their regular tax as part of the calculation
of their AMT liability, arguing that they could not have received
4 The notice of deficiency also decreased itemized
deductions by $9.
5 Pursuant to sec. 7491(a), the burden of proof as to
factual issues may shift to the Commissioner where the taxpayer
introduces credible evidence and complies with substantiation
requirements, maintains records, and cooperates fully with
reasonable requests for witnesses, documents, and other
information. Petitioners have not met the requirements of sec.
7491(a).
6 The difference between the parties’ AMT calculations is
actually $948, not $945.88. We consider this difference to be de
minimis.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007