T.C. Summary Opinion 2006-139
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
FRANCIS E. AND LINDA A. FALCONE, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 13041-04S. Filed September 12, 2006.
Francis E. & Linda A. Falcone, pro sese.
Jason M. Kuratnick, for respondent.
GOLDBERG, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant
to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in
effect at the time the petition was filed. The decision to be
entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion
should not be cited as authority. Unless otherwise indicated,
subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the year in issue.
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal
income tax of $1,983 for the taxable year 2002. The single issue
- 2 -
for decision is whether petitioners are liable for the deficiency
due to the alternative minimum tax provided by section 55. We
hold that they are.
Background
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. At the time the petition
was filed, petitioners resided in Mount Laurel, New Jersey.
Petitioners timely filed their 2002 Federal income tax
return but failed to attach Form 6251, Alternative Minimum Tax -
Individuals, to their return. On March 31, 2004, at respondent’s
request, petitioners submitted Form 6251 on which they calculated
the amount of alternative minimum tax due for the 2002 taxable
year. Upon review of petitioners’ Form 6251, respondent
discovered several mathematical errors. After these errors were
corrected, respondent in the notice of deficiency determined that
the correct amount of alternative minimum tax due from
petitioners is $1,983.
The parties agree that errors were made on the Form 6251
submitted by petitioners and that respondent’s computation of the
amount of alternative tax due from the petitioners for the 2002
taxable year is correct. Petitioners nonetheless dispute the
amount of the deficiency and state in their petition that they
- 3 -
should not be required to pay the deficiency because of the
unfairness of the alternative minimum tax.
Discussion
Petitioners’ sole challenge to the proposed deficiency is
that the alternative minimum tax, as applied to them, is
inherently unfair. At trial, petitioners argued that although
they know that the Court has no authority to usurp the role of
the Congress, they would like the Court nonetheless to relieve
them of their Federal income tax obligations so as to ‘make a
statement’ that would spawn a thorough and complete legislative
review of the alternative minimum tax.
The Court has consistently and repeatedly rejected
challenges to proposed deficiencies based on the fairness of the
alternative minimum tax. Kenseth v. Commissioner, 259 F.3d 881
(7th Cir. 2001), affg. 114 T.C. 399 (2000); Merlo v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-178; see also Alexander v.
Commissioner, 72 F.3d 938 (1st Cir. 1995), affg. T.C. Memo. 1995-
51; Okin v. Commissioner, 808 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1987), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1985-199; Warfield v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 179
(1985); Huntsberry v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 742 (1984).
Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s proposed deficiency.
- 4 -
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
Decision will be entered
for respondent.