§56 — Adjustments in computing alternative minimum taxable income

However, nowhere does the written response address the facts ofthe radio message or the substance ofthe applicable law, such as describing how the statements in the message are similar to, or distinguishable from, the regulatory examples that delineate what constitutes "reflect[ing] a view on" a ballot measure for purposes ofdefining a "direct lobbying communication".

However, nowhere does the written response address the facts ofthe radio message or the substance ofthe applicable law, such as describing how the statements in the message are similar to, or distinguishable from, the regulatory examples that delineate what constitutes "reflect[ing] a view on" a ballot measure for purposes ofdefining a "direct lobbying communication".

- 9 - the life and nonlife subgroups according to the section 56(g)(4) adjustments attributable to each subgroup . Petitioner's revised methodology also differs from its original calculations in tha t it does not apply the loss limitation rules to preadjustment AMTI when calculating ACE but continues to apply the loss limitation rules to preadjustment AMTI when comparing preadjustment AMT I with ACE .

Gottesman is inapposite.

Whether or not section 56(b)(1)(A)(ii) has that effect, we do not agree that that reading precludes respondent's claim here; i.e., that a deduction under section 216(a)(1) based on taxes paid by a cooperative housing corporation is a deduction for taxes "described in" section 164(a).

Conclusion We hold that petitioner's carryback of the ATNOL from 2004 to 2002 is not a "carryover" within the meaning of section 56(d) (1) (A) (ii) (I) and that section 56(d) (1) (A) (i) (II) precludes petitioner from deducting an ATNOL that offsets all of its AMTI for 2002.

Commissioner, supra, we held that tax preferences are a significant, but not necessarily an indispensable component of alternative minimum taxable income. Accordingly, the taxpayers in that case were held liable for the AMT computed in accordance with the specific provisions of section 55, notwithstanding the fact that the taxpayers did not have any items of tax preference for the taxable year in issue.

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

Commissioner, supra, we held that tax preferences are a significant, but not necessarily an indispensable, component of alternative minimum taxable income. Accordingly, the taxpayers in that case were held liable for the alternative minimum tax computed in accordance with the specific provisions of section 55, notwithstanding the fact that the - 9 - taxpayers did not have any items of tax preference for the taxable year in issue.

tion; (2) the rules of statutory construction show that section 56(g)(4)(C)(i) does not apply to depletion; (3) the legislative history of section 56(g)(4) confirms that section 56(g)(4)(C)(i) does not apply to depletion; (4) the statutory scheme of section 56 makes sense only if section 56(g)(4)(C)(i) does not apply to depletion; and (5) applying section 56(g)(4)(C)(i) to depletion would duplicate the adjustment for tax preferences under sections 55(b)(2) and 57(a)(1).

onlife groups. Id. The Court considered the relationship between the operating loss rules in the regular tax and AMT systems, and explained: Two principles thus emerge from the confluence of the organization and the underlying legislative history of section 56. First, the book income adjustment must be taken into account in computing the ATNOL arising in a given year and available for carrying to other years or the amount of AMTI available in a given year for absorbing amounts carried from other

Section 56 provides, in part, as follows: SEC. 56 ADJUSTMENTS IN COMPUTING ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAXABLE INCOME. (a) General Rule.--In addition to the other taxes imposed by * * * [chapter one of subtitle A of the Code], there is hereby imposed for each taxable year, with respect to the income of every corporation, a tax 15 It should be noted that, d

Section 56 provides, in part, as follows: SEC. 56 ADJUSTMENTS IN COMPUTING ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAXABLE INCOME. (a) General Rule.--In addition to the other taxes imposed by * * * [chapter one of subtitle A of the Code], there is hereby imposed for each taxable year, with respect to the income of every corporation, a tax 15 It should be noted that, d

The sole question presented by respondent’s motion is whether the IRS cor- rectly determined petitioners’ liability for AMT.2 Section 56 sets forth a number 2This opinion does not address the question whether petitioner Mazwin is entitled to relief from joint and several liability under sec.

Carry Back Net Operating Losses and Alternative Tax Net Operating Losses To Reduce Their AMTI for 2000 In a further attempt to carry back their AMT capital losses, petitioners assert their AMT capital losses entitle them to an ATNOL deduction under section 56 . This, too, is an argument the Court rejected in Merlo v. Commissioner, supra . A taxpayer normally may carry back a net operating loss (NOL) to the 2 taxable years preceding the loss, then forward to each of the 20 taxable years followin

AMTI equals the taxpayer’s taxable income for the year determined with the adjustments provided in section 56 and increased by the amount of tax preference items described in section 57.

ercent of the excess of petitioner's AMTI over his exemption amount of $33,750. See sec. 55(b)(1)(A)(i)(I). As petitioner had no items of tax preference in 1997, AMTI here means petitioner's taxable income determined with the adjustments provided in section 56. 2There are no factual issues in dispute that are relevant to ascertaining the tax liability of petitioner in this case and the Court therefore finds sec. 7491(a) to be inapplicable. - 6 - Petitioner reads the flush language following sect

Respondent contends that the fee must be included in gross income 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.

incorrect. * * * Each individual summary judgment motion must be evaluated independently to determine whether there exists a genuine dispute of material fact and whether movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [11 Moore's Federal Practice sec. 56.10[6] (3d ed. 1998) at 56-57; fn. ref. omitted.] See also 10A Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil sec. 2720 (3d ed. 1998), and the cases cited therein. - 25 - the CD’s and time deposits held by IFNB can be decided. Accordingly,

As relevant herein, the term "alternative minimum taxable income" means the taxpayer's taxable income for the taxable year determined with the adjustments provided in section 56 and increased by the amount of items of tax preference described in section 57.

red, procedure” the Constitution commands. INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 951 (1983). We would risk, too, upsetting reliance interests in the settled meaning of a statute. Cf. 2B N. Singer & J. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 56A:3 (rev. 7th ed. 2012). The circumstances before us do not involve the Court’s giving an undefined statutory term a meaning different from the ordinary meaning it would have had at the time of its adoption, thus interfering with the “single, fin

-8- [*8] became clear at a November 2005 town meeting that there was little or no support for the flexible development, so Mr. Emanouil pursued the affordable housing projects instead. Progress with the LIP plan Under Mr. Emanouil's proposed LIP, he would have had the town's Board ofSelectmen ("the BOS")4 be a co-applicant with

As relevant herein, section 55(b)(2) defines alternative minimum taxable income as the taxpayer's taxable income for the taxable year determined with the adjustments provided in section 56 and increased by the amounts ofitems oftax preference described in section 57.5 Petitioner had no items oftax preference in 5 As relevant herein, taxable income means gross income less (1) allowable Schedule A itemized deductions and (2) the deduction for personal exemptions.

ons, 1980, Appleby, Reg. 10(1), Schedule I, Figure B (Berm.). During the years in issue, the BMA had the authority to modify prescribed requirements through both prospective and retroactive directives for special allowances. See Insurance Act, 1978, sec. 56. Legacy planned to insure petitioner's liabilities for the period beginning in 2002 and ending December 31, 2003 (proposed period). Aon informed petitioner that coverage provided by unrelated insurers would be more costly than Aon's estimate

ons, 1980, Appleby, Reg. 10(1), Schedule I, Figure B (Berm.). During the years in issue, the BMA had the authority to modify prescribed requirements through both prospective and retroactive directives for special allowances. See Insurance Act, 1978, sec. 56. Legacy planned to insure petitioner's liabilities for the period beginning in 2002 and ending December 31, 2003 (proposed period). Aon informed petitioner that coverage provided by unrelated insurers would be more costly than Aon's estimate

ons, 1980, Appleby, Reg. 10(1), Schedule I, Figure B (Berm.). During the years in issue, the BMA had the authority to modify prescribed requirements through both prospective and retroactive directives for special allowances. See Insurance Act, 1978, sec. 56. Legacy planned to insure petitioner's liabilities for the period beginning in 2002 and ending December 31, 2003 (proposed period). Aon informed petitioner that coverage provided by unrelated insurers would be more costly than Aon's estimate

ons, 1980, Appleby, Reg. 10(1), Schedule I, Figure B (Berm.). During the years in issue, the BMA had the authority to modify prescribed requirements through both prospective and retroactive directives for special allowances. See Insurance Act, 1978, sec. 56. Legacy planned to insure petitioner’s liabilities for the period beginning in 2002 and ending December 31, 2003 (proposed period). Aon informed petitioner that coverage provided by unrelated insurers would be more costly than Aon’s estimate

56a-1001 (2005). A Kansas partnership that elects to become an L.L.P. "continues to be the same entity that existed before the filing of a statement "(...continued) if: in addition to the exercise of his rights and powers as a limited partner, he takes part in the control of the business. However, if the limited partner's participation in the

56a-1001 (2005). A Kansas partnership that elects to become an L.L.P. "continues to be the same entity that existed before the filing of a statement "(...continued) if: in addition to the exercise of his rights and powers as a limited partner, he takes part in the control of the business. However, if the limited partner's participation in the

56a-1001 (2005). A Kansas partnership that elects to become an L.L.P. “continues to be the same entity that existed before the filing of a statement of qualification under K.S.A. 56a-1001.” Kan. Stat. Ann. sec. 56a-201(b) (2005). Section 1402(a)(13) was originally enacted as section 1402(a)(12) at a time (1977) before entities such as L.L.P.s

Itemized deductions may be limited under section 68 and may have alternative minimum tax implications under section 56 (b) (1) (A) (i ) An individual who performs services as an independent contractor is entitled to deduct expenses incurred in the performance of services on Schedule C and is not subject t o limitations imposed on miscellaneous itemized deductions .

e taxpayer's . Alternative Minimum Taxable Income (AMTI) . AMTI starts with the taxpayer's regular taxable income before the deduction for personal exemptions . ' Section 55(b)(2)(A) increases or decreases that income by th e adjustments provided in section 56 . For example, relevant adjustments include disallowances (addbacks) of deductions fo r State and local income taxes, personal property taxes, an d miscellaneous itemized deductions . See sec . 56(b)(1)(A) arrive at the -final AMTI, sectio

ction allowable under sec. 172 that are set forth in sec. 56(d)(1) and (2). Although the adjustments set forth in sec. 56(d)(1) and (2) may affect the amount of the alternative tax net operating loss deduction allowed under sec. 56(a)(4), nothing in sec. 56 allows the carryback of a net operating loss for AMT purposes. The term “regular tax” is defined in sec. 55(c)(1) as the “regular tax liability for the taxable year (as defined in section 26(b))”, reduced by certain credits specified in sec.

loss realized in 2001 to reduce his AMTI in 2000. C. Net Operating Losses and Alternative Tax Net Operating Losses In an attempt to carry back his AMT capital loss, petitioner argues that the AMT capital loss entitles him to an ATNOL deduction under section 56. Generally, a taxpayer may carry back a net operating loss (NOL) to the 2 taxable years preceding the loss, then forward to each of the 20 taxable years following the loss.11 Sec. 10(...continued) of calculating petitioner’s AMTI. We do no

Petitioners assert that section 56 entitles them to deduct a net operating loss for 2001 equal to the $2,086,009 difference (as rounded) between the 2001 regular tax capital gain of $148,461 and the 2001 AMT capital loss of $1,937,547 .

loss realized in 2001 to reduce his AMTI in 2000. C. Net Operating Losses and Alternative Tax Net Operating Losses In an attempt to carry back his AMT capital loss, petitioner argues that the AMT capital loss entitles him to an ATNOL deduction under section 56. Generally, a taxpayer may carry back a net operating loss (NOL) to the 2 taxable years preceding the loss, then forward to each of the 20 taxable years following the loss. Sec. 172(b)(1)(A). Section 172(c) defines an NOL as “the excess of

Petitioners assert that section 56 entitles them to deduct a net operating loss for 2001 equal to the $2,086,009 difference (as rounded) between the 2001 regular tax capital gain of $148,461 and the 2001 AMT capital loss of $1,937,547.

Carry Back Net Operating Losses and Alternative Tax Net Operating Losses To Reduce Their AMTI for 2000 In a further attempt to carry back their AMT capital losses, petitioners assert their AMT capital losses entitle them to an ATNOL deduction under section 56. This, too, is an argument the Court rejected in Merlo v. Commissioner, supra. A taxpayer normally may carry back a net operating loss (NOL) to the 2 taxable years preceding the loss, then forward to each of the 20 taxable years following

This statement of the law is consistent with the former version of section 1301 and a comparable provision imposing a minimum tax on tax preference income under section 56 of the Tax Reform Act of 1969.

ceeds the exemption amount. Sec. 55(b)(1)(A)(ii). The exemption amount for individuals filing singly, as in petitioner's case, is $33,750. Sec. 55(d). AMTI equals the taxpayer's taxable income for the year determined with the adjustments provided in section 56. Sec. 55(b)(2). In calculating AMTI, no deduction is allowed for miscellaneous itemized deductions or for State and local taxes paid, unless such amounts are deductible in determining adjusted gross income. Sec. 56(b)(1). Also, no deductio

As pertinent here, one of the adjustments provided in section 56 is the book income adjustment of section 56(f), as follows: SEC.

(2) Alternative minimum taxable income.--The term "alternative minimum taxable income" means the taxable income of the taxpayer for the taxable year-- - 15 - (A) determined with the adjustments provided in section 56 and section 58, and (B) increased by the amount of the items of tax preference described in section 57.

(2) Alternative minimum taxable income.--The term "alternative minimum taxable income" means the taxable income of the taxpayer for the taxable year-- - 15 - (A) determined with the adjustments provided in section 56 and section 58, and (B) increased by the amount of the items of tax preference described in section 57.

- 15 - (A) determined with the adjustments provided in section 56 and section 58, and (B) increased by the amount of the items of tax preference described in section 57.

- 15 - (A) determined with the adjustments provided in section 56 and section 58, and (B) increased by the amount of the items of tax preference described in section 57.

(2) Alternative minimum taxable income.--The term "alternative minimum taxable income" means the taxable income of the taxpayer for the taxable year-- - 15 - (A) determined with the adjustments provided in section 56 and section 58, and (B) increased by the amount of the items of tax preference described in section 57.

As pertinent here, one of the adjustments provided in section 56 is the book income adjustment of section 56(f), as follows: SEC.

TI) exceeds the exemption amount. See sec. 55(b)(1)(A)(ii). The exemption amount for married couples filing a joint return is $45,000. See sec. 55(d). AMTI equals the taxpayer's taxable income for the year determined with the adjustments provided in section 56. See sec. 55(b)(2). In calculating AMTI, no deduction is allowed for miscellaneous itemized deductions or for State and local taxes paid, unless such amounts are deductible in determining adjusted - 4 - gross income. See sec. 56(b)(1). Als

ed by any specific references to the Constitution or citations to precedent", that section 55 is unconstitutional. Id. We rejected that argument on the basis of cases upholding the con- stitutionality of the so-called add-on minimum tax under former section 56. See Wyly v. United States, 662 F.2d 397, 403-406 (5th Cir. 1981); Graff v. Commissioner, 74 - 25 - T.C. 743, 765-767 (1980), affd. per curiam 673 F.2d 784 (5th Cir. 1982). On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit also rejecte

and (2) the contingent fee is deductible as a miscellaneous itemized deduction, subject to the 2-percent floor under section 67 and the overall limitation under section 68 and also nondeductible in computing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) under section 56. - 14 - This controversy is driven by the substantial difference in the amount of tax burden that may result from the parties’ approaches.3 The difference, of course, is a consequence of the plain language of sections 56, 67, and 68, so the

and (2) the contingent fee is deductible as a miscellaneous itemized deduction, subject to the 2-percent floor under section 67 and the overall limitation under section 68 and also nondeductible in computing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) under section 56. This controversy is driven by the substantial difference in the amount of tax burden that may result from the parties’ approaches. The difference, of course, is a consequence of the plain language of sections 56, 67, and 68, so the charact

t in question, he could have ordered CFB to stop payment at decedent's request. Petitioner does not direct us to, nor have we found, any State that recognizes delivery of a check to be a completed gift of the underlying funds. See 38A C.J.S., Gifts, sec. 56 (1996) ("The gift of the donor's own check is but the promise of a gift and does not amount to a completed gift until payment or acceptance by the drawee."). Furthermore, mere possession of a power to revoke, not the ability to exercise it, i

t in question, he could have ordered CFB to stop payment at decedent’s request. Petitioner does not direct us to, nor have we found, any State that recognizes delivery of a check to be a completed gift of the underlying funds. See 38A C.J.S., Gifts, sec. 56 (1996) (“The gift of the donor’s own check is but the promise of a gift and does not amount to a completed gift until payment or acceptance by the drawee.”). Furthermore, mere possession of a power to revoke, not the ability to exercise it, i

(ii) Specified Items.--The following are specified in this clause-- (I) the adjustments provided for in subsection (b)(1) of section 56, and (II) the items of tax preference described in paragraphs (1), (5), and (7) of section 57(a).

Coburn report was its claim of a 90-percent success rate for exploratory drilling. Likelihoods of success on the order of 90 percent are associated with developmental drilling, which the Memorandum itself defined as 11 See supra n.7. 12 Now repealed sec. 56(h)(6)(B), providing energy based preference adjustments to the alternative minimum tax, defined the minimum distance of an exploratory well from other wells as 1.25 miles or 800 feet in depth (the exploratory well being deeper). - 32 - drilli

(The shares of the realized gain on the - 12 - sale of the Property allocated to the partners on the Schedules K-1 exceeds the applicable amount in each case.) Also, we note that for purposes of the alternative minimum tax under section 56, section 56(b)(1)(A)(ii) disallows any taxes described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 164(a).

— The following are specified in this clause— (I) the adjustments provided for in subsection (b)(1) of section 56, and (II) the items of tax preference described in paragraphs (1), (5), and (7) of section 57(a).

o would be entitled to share in the taxable income if distributed and the amount of the distributive share of each individual." The regulations further clarify that the return shall include the "amount of the distributive share of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit (including any items which enter into the determination of the tax imposed by section 56) allocated to each partner." Sec.

o would be entitled to share in the taxable income if distributed and the amount of the distributive share of each individual." The regulations further clarify that the return shall include the "amount of the distributive share of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit (including any items which enter into the determination of the tax imposed by section 56) allocated to each partner." Sec.

case, the taxpayer would have been liable for the minimum tax on tax preference items imposed by section 56 for the taxable year 1977 there involved absent the provisions of section 58.