Bidyut K. Bhattacharyya and Diana T. Bhattacharyya - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
          of $123,797.5  After deducting total payments of $282,821,                  
          petitioners requested a refund of $131,024 and that $28,000 be              
          applied to their 2001 estimated tax.  Petitioners’ 2000 tax                 
          return did not include a Form 6251 or any other calculation of              
          their alternative minimum tax liability.                                    
               In response to a letter from respondent inquiring about the            
          absence of an alternative minimum tax computation, petitioners              
          sent respondent a letter on September 15, 2003, and attached a              
          Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return                       
          (petitioners’ first Form 1040X).  On petitioners’ first Form                
          1040X, petitioners included a Form 6251, determined an                      
          alternative minimum tax liability of $56,827, but reduced their             
          income by more than $630,000 and claimed a refund of $9,270.                
          Respondent did not file petitioners’ first Form 1040X.                      
               On May 25, 2004, respondent issued petitioners a notice of             
          deficiency.  Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners’             
          2000 Federal income tax of $314,372, based on respondent’s                  
          determination that petitioners were liable for alternative                  
          minimum tax of $314,371.6  Respondent also determined that                  



               5  It is unclear how petitioners calculated the tax on IRAs            
          and other retirement plans, but $63,717 is apparently                       
          petitioners’ calculation of a 10-percent additional tax under               
          sec. 72(t).                                                                 
               6  Respondent also increased petitioners’ itemized                     
          deductions by $1 to correct a rounding error made by petitioners.           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011