TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Abdul Kamara
Docket Number: 19016-05S
Judge: Nims
Opinion Type: summary
Filed: 06/21/2007
Pages: 6

T .C . Summary Opinion 2007-103 UNITED STATES TAX COUR T ABDUL KAMARA, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t 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 opinio n SERVED JUN 21 2007 - 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 i n 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 taxe s 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 .3 d 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 entere d for respondent .