§55 — Alternative minimum tax imposed

I proved it to myself essentially.” Based on petitioners’ admission, and our review of respondent’s computation, we hold that petitioners are subject to the alternative minimum tax provided under section 55.

We hold that they are.

Regrettably for petitioners, we hold that they are.

216 provides in pertinent part: (continued...) Section 55 provides for an alternative minimum tax (AMT).

We hold for respondent that the fee must be treated as a miscellaneous itemized deduction.

The second issue is the alternative minimum tax under section 55. Section 55(a) imposes a tax equal to the excess of (1) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year, over (2) the regular tax for the taxable year. Petitioner argues that, if a taxpayer elects income averaging, that method of computation of the tax is exclusive and trumps the alternative minimum tax under section 55. The Court does not agree with that argument. In the conference committee report to the Taxpayer Relief Act of 199

55(b)(2). See generally. sec. 59, which, although not specifically mentioned in section 55, provides definitions and special rules that apply in the setting of AMT. As to the meaning of the term "taxable income", Congress has provided unambiguously and with sweeping breadth that "for purposes of this subtitle, the term 'taxable income' means gross income [see sec. 61(a) for the applicable meaning of the term "gross income"6] minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard d

For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term "net income tax" means the sum of the regular tax liability and the tax imposed by section 55, reduced by the credits allowable under subparts A and B of this part, and the term "net regular tax liability" means the regular tax liability reduced by the sum of the credits allowable under subparts A and B of this part.

The AMT is imposed upon a taxpayer' s AMTI, which is an income base broader than the usual base of taxable income applicable to Federal income taxes in general. See H. Conf. Rept. 99-841 (Vol. II), at II-249 (individual AMT) , II-263 (corporate AMT) (1986) , 1986-3 C. B. (Vol. 4) 250, 264. Congress established AMTI as a broad base of

The Court must therefore decide whether for 2013 petitioner is liable for a deficiency of$4,363 that is attributable solely to the alternative minimum tax prescribed by section 55.2 Background The parties agree and/or there is no dispute regarding the following.

The AMT under section 55 applies generally to all taxpayers, and in this case, as a result of the 90-percent limitation on the AMT foreign tax credit under section 59(a)(2)(A), the calculation of petitioners’ TMT exceeds petitioners’ regular tax by $2,136, - 6 - resulting in petitioners’ AMT liability in that amount.

Section 55 provides for an alternative minimum tax (AMT). In computing alternative minimum taxable income (amti), no deduction is allowed to an individual for, inter alia, miscellaneous itemized deductions (as defined in section 67(b)) or “for any taxes described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 164(a)” unless such taxes are deductible in c

Gilbert is liable under section 55 for alternative minimum tax because of the increase in her gross income from the alimony adjustment.

- 3 - The Commissioner sent petitioner a notice of deficiency dated March 30, 2001, stating his determination that petitioner is liable for the alternative minimum tax prescribed by section 55 in the amount of $4,233.

me and treated as a miscellaneous itemized deduction from adjusted gross income, subject to the 2-percent floor under section 67(a) and disallowed as a deduction under section 56 in computing income subject to the alternative minimum tax (amt) under section 55. We hold for respondent that the fee must be treated as a miscellaneous itemized deduction. Background Petitioners Frank and Barbara Biehl (Mr. Biehl and Mrs. Biehl) resided in San Jose, California, when they filed the petition. Mr. Biehl

that the regular tax for purposes of calculating their alternative minimum tax under section 55 was the tax that would have been imposed under 2³ One court has stated that the purpose of the corporate minimum tax "is to make sure that the aggregating of tax- preference items does not result in the taxpayer's paying a shockingly low percentage of his income as tax." First Chicago Corp.

' Federal income tax for the taxable year 1994 in the amount of $1,085.43, as well as an addition to tax under section 6654(a) in the amount of $66.36. The deficiency in income tax is solely attributable to the alternative minimum tax prescribed by section 55. After a concession by respondent,2 the only issue for decision is whether petitioners are liable for the alternative minimum tax. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated, and are so found. Petitioners resided in Marquette,

onship—and her children understood this. Larson has been the sole member of the investment committee since it began. South Dakota law defines this committee’s fiduciary obligations to the Insurance Trust and its beneficiaries. See S.D. Codified Laws § 55-1B- 4 (1997). And we specifically find that, as the committee’s only member, Larson was under a fiduciary duty to exercise his power to direct the Insurance Trust’s investments prudently, and he faced possible liability to its beneficiaries if h

a miscellaneous itemized deduction for attorney’s fees would be allowed. But while miscellaneous itemized deductions are allowable against the regular tax, they are not allowed for purposes of computing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) im- posed by section 55. See sec. 56(b)(1)(A)(i). The IRS accordingly determined that petitioners were liable for AMT of $3,003. On June 10, 2019, the IRS issued petitioners a notice of deficiency. The notice included adjustments to income of $20 for interest and

The deficiency is attributable entirely to the imposition ofthe section 55 alternative minimum tax (AMT).

Overview Section 55 imposes an AMT in addition to the regular tax imposed by the Code.

55-80 (2012), which imposes liability on the grounds ofactual fraud, (2) Va. Code Ann. sec. 55-81 (2012), which imposes liability on the grounds ofconstructive fraud, and (3) Virginia's trust fund doctrine. We address the referenced statutoryprovisions and doctrine in turn. Before doing so, however, we pause briefly to address the scope ofthe

Restatement (Third) ofRestitution & Unjust Enrichment § 55, comment b (2011).

55-80 (2012), which imposes liability on the grounds ofactual fraud, (2) Va. Code Ann. sec. 55-81 (2012), which imposes liability on the grounds ofconstructive fraud, and (3) Virginia's trust fund doctrine. We address the referenced statutoryprovisions and doctrine in turn. Before doing so, however, we pause briefly to address the scope ofthe

55-80 (2012), which imposes liability on the grounds ofactual fraud, (2) Va. Code Ann. sec. 55-81 (2012), which imposes liability on the grounds ofconstructive fraud, and (3) Virginia's trust fund doctrine. We address the referenced statutoryprovisions and doctrine in turn. Before doing so, however, we pause briefly to address the scope ofthe

55-80 (2012), which imposes liability on the grounds ofactual fraud, (2) Va. Code Ann. sec. 55-81 (2012), which imposes liability on the grounds ofconstructive fraud, and (3) Virginia's trust fund doctrine. We address the referenced statutoryprovisions and doctrine in turn. Before doing so, however, we pause briefly to address the scope ofthe

For the following reasons, we agree with respondent. As best we can determine from the record, at the time petitioner signed the agreenhent she was either unemployed or employed as a residentphysician by an organization not disclosed in the record. Following that period ofunemployment or employment, she practiced medicine as an employee of

55-80 (2012), which imposes liability on the grounds of actual fraud, (2) Va. Code Ann. sec. 55-81 (2012), which imposes liability on the grounds of constructive fraud, and (3) Virginia’s trust fund doctrine. We address the referenced statutory provisions and doctrine in turn. Before doing so, however, we pause briefly to address the scope of

an only be in unions with other security guards. Id. 9 A master contract is a collective-bargaining agreementthat describes the terms ofemployment for all union workers within a particular company, market, or industry. See 20 Williston on Contracts, sec. 55:19 (4th ed. 2010). -7- [*7] One ofthe most important ofthose terms was the master contract's provision for the DBO plan. The master contract stipulated that "the benefits program * * * be administered through the American Workers Benefit Fund

Alternative Minimum Tax Section 55 imposes an alternative minimum tax, in addition to the regular tax imposed for the year, equal to the excess ofthe tentative minimum tax over the regular tax for the taxable year.

an only be in unions with other security guards. Id. 9 A master contract is a collective-bargaining agreementthat describes the terms ofemployment for all union workers within a particular company, market, or industry. See 20 Williston on Contracts, sec. 55:19 (4th ed. 2010). -7- [*7] One ofthe most important ofthose terms was the master contract's provision for the DBO plan. The master contract stipulated that "the benefits program * * * be administered through the American Workers Benefit Fund

55-2103 ("An action affecting a conservation easement may be brought".) But once an action was brought, U.S. Bank's mortgage would have been protected, for Idaho Code Ann. sec. 55-2102(4)--part ofthe Act--provides: "An interest in real property in existence at the time a conservation easement is created is not impaired by it unless the owner o

55-2 (2007); FDIC v. Hish, 76 F.3d 620, 623 (4th Cir. 1996). "The requirements for a deed are 'competent parties, a lawful subject matter, a valuable consideration, apt words ofconveyance, and proper execution.'" Lim v. Choi, 501 S.E.2d 141, 143 (Va. 1998)(quoting Morison v. Am. Ass'n, 65 S.E. 469, 470 (1909)). Use oftechnical words or strict

55-2 (2007); FDIC v. Hish, 76 F.3d 620, 623 (4th Cir. 1996). “The requirements for a deed are ‘competent parties, a lawful subject matter, a valuable consideration, apt words of conveyance, and proper execution.’” Lim v. Choi, 501 S.E.2d 141, 143 (Va. 1998) (quoting Morison v. Am. Ass’n, 65 S.E. 469, 470 (1909)). Use of technical words or stri

- 9 - allocation, rather than being aggregated with all other items to which the deficiency is attributable: (1) Disallowed credits; and (2) any tax (other than income tax imposed by section 1 or alternative minimum tax imposed by section 55) that is required to be included with the joint return.

A deficiency resulting from a tax (other than the income tax on individuals imposed by section 1 and ·the alternative minimum tax imposed by section 55) is allocated to the joint filer to whom the tax would be allocated if separate returns were filed.

55, 67, and 68; see also Commissioner v.

55.03 (West 2006) for the period February 21, 2003 (the date Jerry Rubenstein transferred his condominium to petitioner), until October 17, 2005 (the prenotice period). IUnless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code. 2Giving effe

The sole issue for decision is whether petitioners are liable for alternative minimum tax (AMT) under section 55 as a result of th e 29 2008 SERVED APR 2 - limitation on the amount of the AMT foreign tax credit imposed by section 59 (a) (2) .1 Background The parties submitted this case fully stipulated under Rule 122 .

urn, for the consolidated group . For 1996 through 1998 petitioner's returns reflected a liability for regular income tax which was reduced by AMT credits under section 53 . For 1999 and 2000, petitioner's returns reflected a liability for AMT under section 55 . For 2001 and 2002 petitioner's returns reflected a liability for regular - 5 - income tax that was reduced by AMT credits under section 53 . Petitioner paid the taxes shown on its returns for each year . For each of the years 1996 throug

Section 55 imposes the AMT and sets forth the interrelated structure of the regular tax, capital gains tax, and AMT . This section is abundantly complex, but the computation of the correct amount of tax can be achieved by . reference to section 55 and related and referenced provisions of the Internal Revenue Code . In the context of this case the A

l transac- tions) ; section 4 .2 (regarding the distribution of capital proceeds and the allocation of profit or loss rom capital transactions) ; section 4 .4 (regarding the dist ibution of MFV's assets upon the liquidation and dissolution of MFV) ; section 55MFV's operating agreement expressly list d in section 5 .1 .2 various powers, including the following , that were among the powers of MFV's general manager, subject i all cases to the other provisions of that operating agreement a d the req

eturn, for the consolidated group. For 1996 through 1998 petitioner’s returns reflected a liability for regular income tax which was reduced by AMT credits under section 53. For 1999 and 2000, petitioner’s returns reflected a liability for AMT under section 55. For 2001 and 2002 petitioner’s returns reflected a liability for regular income tax that was reduced by AMT credits under section 53. Petitioner paid the taxes shown on its returns for each year. For each of the years 1996 through 2002 pe

the will or law of intestacy. See, e.g., S.D. Codified Laws sec. 29A-3-703(a) (2004). Directors of foundations — remember that Hamilton is one of the directors of the Foundation that her mother created — are also fiduciaries. See S.D. Codified Laws sec. 55-9-8 (2004). In South Dakota, as in most states, the state attorney general has authority to enforce these fiduciary duties using the common law doctrine of parens patriae. Her fellow directors or beneficiaries of the Foundation or Trust can p

Discussion Section 55 imposes an AMT in addition to all other taxe s imposed by subtitle A .

In an offer-in-compromise dated October 26, 2000 (the 2000 offer), petitioner proposed to satisfy his outstanding tax liabilities with an $8,256 cash offer, payable within 90 days from the date the offer was accepted by respondent. The 2000 offer, which was received by respondent on November 2, 2000, was based upon “doubt as to collectabil

Section 55 imposes, in addition to all other taxes imposed by subtitle A, an AMT on noncorporate taxpayers. The - 14 - determination of a noncorporate taxpayer’s AMT requires a recomputation of taxable income, leading to a new tax base or an alternative minimum taxable income. Sec. 55(b)(2). In making the recomputation, the standard deduction and

Finally, as noted above, respondent now agrees that petitioner is entitled to a miscellaneous itemized deduction in an amount equal to the amount includable in her income, and petitioner agrees that the imposition of the section 55 alternative minimum tax that results is computational.

Section 55 imposes , in addition to all other taxes imposed by subtitle A, an AMT on noncorporate taxpayers . The - 14 - determination of a noncorporate taxpayer's AMT requires a recomputation of taxable income , leading to a new tax base or an alternative minimum taxable income . Sec . 55 (b)(2) . In making the recomputation, the standard deducti

111, 115 (1933) .' Section 55 imposes, in addition to all other taxes imposed by subtitle A, an AMT on noncorporate taxpayers .

section 55-2-107 (Michie 1993) provides: Sec. 55-2-107. Goods to be Severed from Realty; Recording (1) A contract for the sale of minerals or the like (including oil and gas) * * * to be removed from realty is a contract for the sale of goods within this article if they are to be severed by the seller but until severance a purported present sale th

When the petitions were filed in the instant cases, ¹ $252 of the 2003 determined deficiency is alternative minimum tax under section 55; the remaining amount for 2003 and the entire amount for 2001 are section 1 income tax.

When the petitions were filed in the insta(tt cases, ¹ $252 of the 2003 determined deficiency i alternative minimum tax under section 55; the remaining amo ant for 2003 and the entire amount for 2001 are section 1 income tax.

Section 55 is unambiguous . The computation of AMTI requires a taxpayer to first compute his regular taxable income and then adjust that amount to reflect the items described i n " To avoid confusion between petitioner's capital losses, the Court refers to his capital loss for regular tax purposes as his "regular capital loss" and refers to his cap

section 55-2-107 (Michie 1993) provides: Sec. 55-2-107. Goods to be Severed from Realty; Recording (1) A contract for the sale of minerals or the like (including oil and gas) * * * to be removed from realty is a contract for the sale of goods within this article if they are to be severed by the seller but until severance a purported present sale th

s application of the proportionate allocation method to any portion of the deficiency other than any portion of the deficiency (1) attributable to erroneous items allocable to the nonrequesting spouse of which the requesting spouse had actual knowledge, (2) attributable to separate treatment items (as defined in sec.

ed in sec. 1.6015-3(d)(4)(ii), Income Tax Regs.), (3) relating to the liability of a child (as defined in sec. 1.6015-3(d)(4)(iii), Income Tax Regs.) of the requesting spouse or nonrequesting spouse, (4) attributable to alternative minimum tax under sec. 55, (5) attributable to accuracy-related or fraud penalties, or (6) allocated pursuant to alternative allocation methods authorized under sec. 1.6015-3(d)(6), Income Tax Regs. Essentially, the parties treat the claimed refund amount of withholdi

Respondent informed petitioners that they were liable for the AMT. Petitioners filed a Form 6251, Alternative Minimum Tax--Individuals, on which they reported (and paid) an additional liability of $1,222. Subsequently, respondent sent petitioners a Notice CP12, 2000 Tax Statement, and mistakenly issued a refund check to petitioners of $1,3

In determining the AMT income, certain adjustments are required and no deduction is allowed for any miscellaneous itemized deduction (as defined in section 67(b)), or for any taxes described in section 164(1), (2), or (3), except for a non-pertinent exception.

The deficiency results entirely from the imposition of the section 55 alternative minimum tax (AMT).

- 2 - amount of this deficiency is alternative minimum tax, under section 55.2 The issue for decision in both parties’ motions is whether the alternative minimum tax applies to petitioner.3 Our statements as to the facts are based entirely on those matters that are admitted in the pleadings, those matters that are admitted in the motion papers, those matters set forth in affidavits or declarations submitted by th

Section 55 imposes, in addition to all other taxes imposed by subtitle A, an AMT on noncorporate taxpayers. The determination of a noncorporate taxpayer’s AMT requires a recomputation of taxable income, leading to a new tax base or an alternative minimum taxable income. Sec. 55(b)(2). In making the recomputation, certain (but not all) itemized dedu

This consent order further provided that, on the bankruptcy trustee’s receipt of this $300,000, the transfers of (1) the stock in the Corporations and (2) the Partnership Interests “shall be void ab initio under Virginia Code Section 55-80",6 and the bankruptcy trustee shall abandon her interest in 5(...continued) years beginning after Dec.

ind is one which, ‘if translated into action, is well calculated to cheat or deceive the government.’” Zell v. - 44 - Commissioner, 763 F.2d 1139, 1143 (10th Cir. 1985), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-152 (quoting 10 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, sec. 55.10, at 46 (1984)). A taxpayer’s background and the context of the events in question may be considered in determining fraudulent intent. Plunkett v. Commissioner, 465 F.2d 299 (7th Cir. 1972), affg. T.C. Memo. 1970-274; see Temple v. Commissio

re to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 2 - Respondent determined a deficiency of $7,267 in petitioner's 2000 Federal income tax. The sole issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable for the alternative minimum tax (AMT) under section 55. Some of the facts were stipulated. Those facts and the accompanying exhibits are so found and are incorporated herein by reference. Petitioner's legal residence at the time the petition was filed was Hot Springs, Virginia. Petitioner filed

6015(d)(2)(B) (discussing section 55 with 5(...continued) dispute that she earned the $1,250 of gross receipts reported on the 1995 return in addition to the $14,065 listed on the Form 1099 from Sporthouse.

6015(d)(2)(B) (discussing section 55 with 5(...continued) dispute that she earned the $1,250 of gross receipts reported on the 1995 return in addition to the $14,065 listed on the Form 1099 from Sporthouse.

30 (1982). “The required state of mind is one which, ‘if translated into action, is well calculated to cheat or deceive the government.’” Zell v. Commissioner, 763 F.2d 1139, 1143 (10th Cir. 1985) (quoting 10 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, sec. 55.10, at 46 (1984)), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-152. A taxpayer’s background and the context of the events in question may be considered in determining fraudulent intent. Plunkett v. Commissioner, 465 F.2d 299 (7th Cir. 1972), affg. T.C. Memo. 1970-

30 (1982). “The required state of mind is one which, ‘if translated into action, is well calculated to cheat or deceive the government.’” Zell v. Commissioner, 763 F.2d 1139, 1143 (10th Cir. 1985) (quoting 10 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, sec. 55.10, at 46 (1984)), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-152. A taxpayer’s background and the context of the events in question may be considered in determining fraudulent intent. Plunkett v. Commissioner, 465 F.2d 299 (7th Cir. 1972), affg. T.C. Memo. 1970-

orations (which, for purposes of section 1503(c) and section 1.1502-47, Income Tax Regs., constituted the “nonlife subgroup”). When petitioner originally filed its 1987 consolidated Federal income tax return, it was not subject to the AMT imposed by section 55. Rather, petitioner ultimately became subject to the AMT for 1987 as a result of occurrences in 1989, namely, Hurricane Hugo, that adversely affected the property/casualty - 5 - insurance operations of the nonlife subgroup in that year and

1, 14-15 (2002), involving the alternative minimum tax under section 55 and commenting on the limited usefulness of the Blue Book applicable to the 1986 Act.

For purposes of the preceding sen·tence, the term "net income tax" means the sum of the regular tax liability and the tax imposed by section 55, reduced by the credits allowable under subparts A and B of this part, and the term "net regular tax liability" means the regular tax liability reduced by the sum of the credits allowable under subparts A and B of this part.

For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term "net income tax" means the sum of the regular tax liability and the tax imposed by section 55, reduced by the credits allowable under subparts A and B of this part, and the term "net regular tax liability" means the regular tax liability reduced by the sum of the credits allowable under subparts A and B of this part.

1, 14-15 (2002), involving the alternative minimum tax under section 55 and commenting on the limited usefulness of the Blue Book applicable to the 1986 Act.

orations (which, for purposes of section 1503(c) and section 1.1502-47, Income Tax Regs., constituted the “nonlife subgroup”). When petitioner originally filed its 1987 consolidated Federal income tax return, it was not subject to the AMT imposed by section 55. Rather, petitioner ultimately became subject to the AMT for 1987 as a result of occurrences in 1989, namely, Hurricane Hugo, that adversely affected the property/casualty insurance operations of the nonlife subgroup in that year and gener

venue Code in effect for the year in issue. - 2 - Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' 1997 Federal income tax in the amount of $10,257. This Court must decide whether petitioners are liable for the alternative minimum tax (AMT) under section 55. Petitioners do not dispute the computation of the AMT. Some of the facts in this case have been stipulated and are so found. Petitioners resided in Evergreen, Colorado, at the time they filed their petition. Dorothy Ross (Mrs. Ross) was th

- 2 - The sole issue for decision is whether petitioners are liable for the alternative minimum tax (AMT) under section 55.2 Some of the facts were stipulated.

n the amount of $314,173.91; (2) if not, whether petitioners may exclude from their gross income for 1994 a portion of the proceeds of the judgment equal to the amount of the attorney's fees paid under a retainer agreement to one of the attorneys who represented them in the State court action; and (3) whether the alternative minimum tax imposed by section 55 violates the Constitution of the United States.

- 3 - Respondent issued a notice of deficiency determining that petitioners were subject to the alternative minimum tax prescribed by section 55 on account of the number of dependency exemptions claimed for their children.

d 5 percent indirectly through petitioner’s control of British American Properties of Houston, Ltd. - 10 - because of the section 67 floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions, and (2) petitioners became subject to the alternative minimum tax under section 55. Because of petitioners’ failure to timely file their 1993 Federal income tax return, respondent determined that an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) should be imposed. OPINION The issue to be resolved is whether legal fees pet

d calculated the appropriate tax. He then claimed a credit for the German income tax he had paid against the income tax he owed to the United States, thereby reducing his Federal income tax liability to zero. He did not report any liability for the section 55 AMT. Section 55(a) imposes an AMT on noncorporate taxpayers equal to the excess of the “tentative minimum tax” over the “regular tax”2 for the taxable year. That excess amount is paid in addition to any regular tax owed. The AMT prevents a

me tax to the foreign countries in an amount exceeding his reported U.S. income tax liability. P claimed a foreign tax credit that reduced his U.S. income tax to zero. P did not compute or report liability for the alternative minimum tax (AMT) under sec. 55, I.R.C., or the foreign tax credit limitations under sec. 59, I.R.C. P claimed that the sec. 59, I.R.C., limit on foreign tax credits violated the double taxation prohibitions of the U.S. income tax treaties with Germany and the United Kingdo

urt Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 2 - Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' Federal income tax for 1995 in the amount of $2,688. The issue for decision is whether petitioners are subject to the alternative minimum tax (AMT) under section 55. 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. Petitioners resided in Webster, New York, at the time their petition was filed. Reference

foreign tax credit each year for income tax paid to foreign jurisdictions. See secs. 27(a), 901. Using these foreign tax credits, petitioner reduced his regular Federal income tax liability to zero. He did not report, however, any liability for the section 55 AMT. Section 55(a) imposes an AMT on noncorporate taxpayers equal to the excess of the “tentative minimum tax” over the “regular tax” for the taxable year. That excess amount is paid in addition to any regular tax owed. The AMT is intended

In Sparrow, the taxpayers argued that the regular tax for purposes of calculating their alternative minimum tax under section 55 was the tax that would have been imposed under section 1 and not the lesser amount of tax that was actually imposed with the benefit of the income averaging provisions of sections 1301-1305.

In Sparrow, the taxpayers argued that the regular tax for purposes of calculating their alternative minimum tax under section 55 was the tax that would have been imposed under section 1 and not the lesser amount of tax that was actually imposed with the benefit of the income averaging provisions of sections 1301-1305.

r subparts A, B, D, E, and F of this part, over (2) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year. (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section-- (1) Net minimum tax.-- - 21 - (A) In General.--The term "net minimum tax" means the tax imposed by section 55. (B) Credit Not Allowed For Exclusion Preferences.-- (i) Adjusted Net Minimum Tax.--The adjusted net minimum tax for any taxable year is-- (I) the amount of the net minimum tax for such taxable year, reduced by (II) the amount which would be

55.03 (West 1988) from April 15, 1992. Decision will be entered under Rule 155.

Alternative Minimum Tax Section 55 imposes "a tax equal to the excess (if any) of * * * the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year, over * * * the regular tax for the taxable year." The Commissioner determined that petitioner's tentative minimum tax exceeded his regular tax.

ble under subparts A, B, D, E, and F of this part, over (2) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year. (d) Definitions. — For purposes of this section— (1) Net minimum tax.— (A) In general. — The term “net minimum tax” means the tax imposed by section 55. (B) Credit not allowed for exclusion preferences.— (i) Adjusted net minimum tax. — The adjusted net minimum tax for any taxable year is— (I) the amount of the net minimum tax for such taxable year, reduced by (II) the amount which would be

Respondent goes on to argue that if the meal allowances are considered additional employee compensation, and the costs - 7 - petitioner incurred in connection with the program are deductible as employee business expenses, the provisions of section 67 (2- percent floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions) and section 55 (alternative minimum tax) result in the increased deficiency now claimed by respondent.

Hathaway, a traveling sales representative, was a common law employee, a statutory employee, or an independent contractor in 1989 and 1990. 1 Of the total deficiencies determined, $9,023 for 1989 and $9,414 for 1990 are alternative minimum tax under sec. 55; the remaining amounts are income tax under sec. 1. Unless indicated otherwise, all section and subtitle references are to sections and subtitles of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as in effect for the years in issue. 2 The parties reached

Respondent goes on to argue that if the meal allowances are considered additional employee compensation, and the costs petitioner incurred in connection with the program are deductible as employee business expenses, the provisions of section 67 (2-percent floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions) and section 55 (alternative minimum tax) result in the increased deficiency now claimed by respondent.

d a deficiency in petitioner's 1992 Federal income tax in the amount of $1,648. Petitioner resided in Wheelersburg, Ohio, at the time the petition was filed. The issue is whether petitioner is subject to the alternative minimum tax (AMT) imposed by section 55. Petitioner is an electrician and a union member. Although his job assignments are generally for relatively short periods of time, he works as a common law employee for each of his employers. Petitioner filed a 1992 Federal income tax retur

ration). Third, chapter 1 of subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code includes a number of income taxes. Insofar as individuals are concerned, there is, of course, the regular income tax imposed by section 1 and the alternative minimum tax imposed by section 55. Additional income taxes are found in other chapters of subtitle A, most notably the self-employment tax in chapter 2. It is apparent, therefore, that there is not a single income tax, but rather a number of separate taxes that compose wha