- 5 -
mathematical errors into his calculation of petitioners’ AMT
liability. Therefore, we find that the inclusion of this
adjustment in the AMT calculation has already benefited
petitioners and cannot reduce respondent’s AMT calculation.
With respect to the remaining $878.08 in dispute, respondent
argues that it was due to an addition to tax for failure to pay
estimated income tax pursuant to section 6654, and should not be
part of the calculation of petitioners’ AMT liability.8 As we
mentioned, the AMT is a tax equal to the excess of the “tentative
minimum tax” for the taxable year over the “regular tax” for the
taxable year. Sec. 55(a). Generally, the term “regular tax
liability” means the tax imposed by chapter 1 of the Internal
Revenue Code for the taxable year. Sec. 26(b)(1). Section
6654(a) provides an addition to tax for failure to pay estimated
income taxes. Section 6654 lies in chapter 68 of the Internal
Revenue Code and thus is not part of a taxpayer’s regular tax
liability. Accordingly, if petitioners’ refund reduction is
8 Respondent argues that because the addition to tax was
based solely on petitioners’ return, and not as a part of the
notice of deficiency, this Court lacks jurisdiction over it. It
is true that we do not have jurisdiction to review respondent’s
assessment of an addition to tax for failure to pay estimated
income tax that is based on a filed return. See sec. 6665; see
also secs. 6211, 6212, and 6213; Meyer v. Commissioner, 97 T.C.
555, 560 (1991). However, our lack of jurisdiction to review the
addition to tax does not prohibit us from determining whether the
addition to tax should be included in the calculation of
petitioners’ AMT liability as determined in respondent’s notice
of deficiency. See sec. 6214(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007