Robert A. and Karen L. Alston - Page 6




                                        - 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