- 5 -
Petitioner provides no authority to support his position.
His arguments are based on criticisms of the AMT in newspaper
articles and his misreading of Internal Revenue Service
Publication 17, Your Federal Income Tax. These are not
authoritative sources of Federal tax law. See Zimmerman v.
Commissioner, 71 T.C. 367, 371 (1978), affd. without published
opinion 614 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir. 1979).
Furthermore, petitioner’s arguments have been previously
rejected by this Court. As set forth in the statute, the AMT
does apply to lower-income taxpayers, not just the wealthy. See
Katz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-97; Prosman v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-87. Although tax preferences play
a part in the computation of the AMT, a taxpayer may still be
liable for the AMT even if he claimed no tax preferences.
Huntsberry v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 742, 744 (1984).
We are not unsympathetic to petitioner’s concerns about the
AMT’s reach. This Court has stated:
The unfortunate consequences of the AMT in various
circumstances have been litigated since shortly after the
adoption of the AMT. In many different contexts, literal
application of the AMT has led to a perceived hardship, but
challenges based on equity have been uniformly rejected.
[Citations omitted.]
Speltz v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 165, 176 (2005), affd. 454 F.3d
782 (8th Cir. 2006). Congress enacted the AMT provisions, and we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007