T.C. Memo. 2003-307
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
LAWRENCE MOORE, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 12424-02. Filed November 6, 2003.
Lawrence Moore, pro se.
Dennis G. Driscoll and Michelle M. Lippert, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GOLDBERG, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined a
deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax of $2,301 for the
taxable year 2000. Unless otherwise indicated, section
references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the
year in issue.
- 2 -
The issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable for
the alternative minimum tax (AMT) in the amount determined by
respondent.
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are
incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in
Toledo, Ohio, on the date the petition was filed in this case.
Petitioner filed a Federal income tax return for taxable
year 2000. As is relevant here, petitioner reported on his
return gross income of $1,824 from a refund of taxes; a personal
exemption deduction of $2,800; an itemized deduction of $5,445
for taxes paid; miscellaneous itemized deductions of $27,057 for
unreimbursed employee business expenses; taxable income of
$21,569; and a tax liability of $3,236. Petitioner did not
report AMT liability in any amount. In the notice of deficiency,
respondent did not adjust any of the above items reported by
petitioner. Respondent’s sole adjustment was his determination
that petitioner was liable for the AMT in the amount of $2,301.
We have reviewed respondent’s calculation of the AMT imposed
by section 55(a) and conclude that it is in accordance with the
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. This calculation, and
the underlying provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, can be
summarized as follows:
- 3 -
Taxable income reported by petitioner $21,569
Refunded taxes included in gross income by petitioner (1,824)
Exemption deduction claimed by petitioner 2,800
Miscellaneous itemized deductions claimed by petitioner 27,057
Itemized deduction for taxes paid claimed by petitioner 5,445
Alternative minimum taxable income under sec. 55(b)(2)1 55,047
Exemption amount pursuant to sec. 55(d)(1)(B) (33,750)
Taxable excess under sec. 55(b)(1)(A)(ii) 21,297
Tentative minimum tax under sec. 55(b)(1)(A)(i) (in this
case equal to 26% of the taxable excess) 5,537
Regular tax under sec. 55(c)(1) as reported by petitioner (3,236)
AMT liability under sec. 55(a) 2,301
1
The adjustments to taxable income required in this case to
calculate alternative minimum taxable income are found, respectively, in
sec. 56(b)(1)(D) and (E) and (A)(i) and (ii).
There are no facts relevant to this calculation other than those
underlying the items that petitioner himself reported on his tax
return. Thus, there are no disputed relevant facts.
Petitioner has set forth various arguments as to why he
should not be liable for the AMT. In these arguments, he calls
into question the integrity and fairness of this Court,1 and he
makes various generalized assertions that respondent and the IRS
acted inappropriately, both with respect to him and with respect
1
For example, petitioner asserts that respondent and the
Court have engaged in improper ex parte communications in a
collusive effort to undermine petitioner’s case. Petitioner’s
primary support for this argument lies in two letters which
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Appeals officers sent to
petitioner. The first letter notified petitioner that the IRS
Appeals Office was reviewing his case, and the second letter
requested that petitioner settle the case by signing a stipulated
decision document. Because the letters were sent to petitioner
after he filed the petition in this case (and because the second
letter was dated on the same date as the Court’s Notice Setting
Case For Trial), petitioner interprets these letters to indicate
the existence of ex parte communications. However, we find
nothing in the letters suggesting ex parte communications; the
letters merely represent a proper attempt by the IRS Appeals
Office to resolve this case before trial.
- 4 -
to society as a whole. We find these and the rest of
petitioner’s arguments to be unfounded and frivolous.
Petitioner’s legal arguments do little more than recite law or
legal principle which is irrelevant, taken completely out of
context, or otherwise misapplied. “We perceive no need to refute
these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of
precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some
colorable merit.” Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417
(5th Cir. 1984). Furthermore, many of petitioner’s arguments
advocate amendment or repeal of the AMT. This Court is not the
proper place for these arguments. The function of this Court is
to accurately and justly apply the laws as they were written by
Congress.
Nevertheless, we briefly address one aspect of petitioner’s
arguments. Throughout the trial and in petitioner’s various
documents filed in this Court, including his brief, petitioner
focuses on his inability to conduct discovery in this case.
Petitioner misunderstands the nature of discovery. The purpose
of discovery in this Court is to ascertain facts which have a
direct bearing on the issues before the Court, not to conduct a
“fishing expedition”. Estate of Woodard v. Commissioner, 64 T.C.
457, 459-460 (1975). There are no factual disputes in the case
at hand--respondent merely calculated petitioner’s AMT liability
under the relevant statutes using information which petitioner
- 5 -
himself provided. It is therefore the Court’s responsibility to
apply the law to the undisputed facts in order to ascertain
petitioner’s correct tax liability. Penn-Field Indus., Inc. v.
Commissioner, 74 T.C. 720, 722 (1980). We have done so and, as
discussed above, have concluded that respondent’s determination
is correct under the law.
Section 6673(a)(1) gives this Court the discretion to
require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in
excess of $25,000 where it appears that proceedings before the
Court have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer
primarily for delay, or that the taxpayer’s position is frivolous
or groundless. Petitioner has advanced only frivolous arguments
and groundless assertions in this case. Furthermore, this is the
second case petitioner has brought in this Court concerning the
application of the AMT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.
In Moore v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-196, we upheld
respondent’s determination that petitioner was liable for the AMT
in a situation nearly identical to the present case. Petitioner
has made no attempt to distinguish the two cases. After the
trial of the present case, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed the decision of this Court in petitioner’s prior
case, stating:
We further conclude that Moore’s arguments relating to
discovery and recusal of the tax court judge are without
merit. First, the determination of whether Moore is liable
for payment of an AMT is a legal question that is not
- 6 -
dependent upon any facts. Therefore, discovery of
unspecified facts allegedly in possession of the
Commissioner is simply unnecessary in this case. Second,
Moore offers no facts or evidence to establish that the
impartiality of the tax court judge might reasonably be
questioned. Moore’s subjective beliefs and the tax court’s
adverse rulings in his case are insufficient to demonstrate
that the tax court judge was biased and prejudiced against
him. * * *
Moore v. Commissioner, 66 Fed. Appx. 625, 626 (6th Cir. 2003).
In part because petitioner’s appeal was not decided before
the present case went to trial, we decline to require petitioner
to pay a penalty under section 6673(a)(1) at this time.
Nevertheless, the imposition of such a penalty remains within the
discretion of this Court if petitioner continues to advance
frivolous arguments which waste limited judicial and
administrative resources.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.