T.C. Summary Opinion 2007-103
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
ABDUL KAMARA, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 19016-05S. Filed June 21, 2007.
Allen S. Lokensky (specially recognized), for petitioner.
Alex Shlivko, for respondent.
NIMS, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions
of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the
petition was filed. Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to
be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion
- 2 -
shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. Unless
otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s 2003
Federal income tax in the amount of $4,176. The issue for
decision is whether petitioner is liable for the alternative
minimum tax (AMT) for the 2003 taxable year.
Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts and related exhibits are incorporated
herein by this reference.
At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in
New York, New York.
Petitioner timely filed a 2003 Form 1040, U.S. Individual
Income Tax Return, for the year ended December 31, 2003. The
return was prepared by Allen Lokensky, a public accountant. On
the return petitioner indicated his status as head of household
and claimed his parents as dependents. In 2003, petitioner
worked as a licensed practical nurse for St. Mary’s Center, Inc.,
and De Sales Assisted Living. He reported $121,309 in Form W-2,
Wage and Tax Statement, wages on his return.
Petitioner deducted $35,017 of itemized deductions for 2003.
On Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, petitioner claimed: $6,450 of
medical and dental expenses, $10,298 of State and local income
- 3 -
taxes, $4,203 of other taxes, $7,680 of gifts to charity, $13,762
of unreimbursed employee business expenses, $250 of tax
preparation fees, and $1,250 of attorney and accounting fees.
Petitioner calculated his total income tax liability to be
$14,976. Petitioner failed to include any AMT or attach Form
6251, Alternative Minimum Tax--Individuals. After subtracting
$13,137 for Federal income tax withheld and $2,225 for excess
Social Security tax withheld, petitioner requested a refund in
the amount of $386.
On July 12, 2005, respondent issued to petitioner a notice
of deficiency for his 2003 Federal income tax. Respondent
determined a deficiency of $4,176, which was attributable to the
AMT. Petitioner filed a petition seeking redetermination of the
deficiency.
Petitioner has conceded that respondent’s arithmetic in
computing petitioner’s AMT is correct. Petitioner has also
conceded that respondent computed the alternative minimum tax in
accordance with the Internal Revenue Code. Petitioner
nevertheless contends that respondent inappropriately applied the
AMT to his circumstances.
Discussion
Section 55 imposes an AMT in addition to all other taxes
imposed by subtitle A. A taxpayer’s AMT liability is the amount
by which the taxpayer’s tentative tax exceeds his or her regular
- 4 -
tax. Sec. 55(a). For noncorporate taxpayers, the tentative tax
is calculated by using the taxpayer’s alternative minimum taxable
income. Sec. 55(b)(1)(A). As relevant to the case before us,
alternative minimum taxable income is a recomputation of taxable
income without the benefit of certain itemized deductions and
personal exemptions. See secs. 55(b)(2), 56(b). Pursuant to
this statutory scheme, respondent calculated petitioner’s AMT
liability to be $4,176.
As previously mentioned, petitioner does not challenge
respondent’s calculation of his AMT liability and agrees that the
calculation was in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code.
Petitioner’s objection is simply that respondent erred in
applying the AMT to petitioner. He asserts that Congress did not
intend for the AMT to apply to taxpayers like him, who are in the
nonwealthy working class. He believes he should not be subject
to the AMT since he works two jobs, night shifts, weekends, and
overtime to support his family. Petitioner also points out that
he did not claim any tax preferences that are targets of the AMT.
(Items of tax preference are described in section 57 and include
depletion, intangible drilling costs, tax-exempt interest,
certain accelerated depreciation or amortization, and exclusion
for gains on sale of certain small business stock.)
- 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
- 6 -
have no authority to disregard them. See Holly v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1998-55. Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s
deficiency determination.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.