Katz v. Comm'r

¶2MEMORANDUM OPINION

¶3CHABOT, Judge: The instant case is before us on the parties' cross-motions under Rule 121¹ for summary judgment.

¶4Respondent determined a deficiency in individual income tax against petitioner for 2000 in the amount of $ 4,214. The entire amount of this deficiency is alternative minimum tax, under section 55. ²

¶5The issue for decision in both parties' motions is whether the alternative minimum tax applies to petitioner. ³

¶6*97 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 the parties, and those matters stated and not rebutted in the Court's hearing on the motions.

¶7             Background

¶8When the petition was filed in the instant case, petitioner resided in West Palm Beach, Florida.

¶9On petitioner's 2000 tax return, he claimed the status of married filing separately. On this tax return, petitioner showed adjusted gross income of $ 46,834.16, itemized deductions of $ 54,275.81, and personal exemptions of $ 2,800. Petitioner computed his taxable income as zero, and his tax liability as zero. He showed $ 133.66 as withheld income tax, all of which he wished refunded. On December 9, 2002, respondent issued the full refund to petitioner.

¶10In the notice of deficiency, respondent's only adjustment to income was the allowance of $ 225 of previously unclaimed Other Interest Expense. ⁴ Respondent agrees that petitioner's "regular tax" (see sec. 55(c)) is zero.

¶11*98              Discussion

¶121. Parties' Contentions

¶13Petitioner contends that the purpose of the alternative minimum tax provisions is to prevent high-income taxpayers from escaping all income tax liability by using exclusions, deductions, and credits. He maintains that "Obviously, the Petitioner did not have a significant level of economic income and all of his deductions and exemptions were deemed legitimate by the Respondent." Petitioner concludes that the "Congress did not intend the AMT to apply at [sic] low or middle-income taxpayers like the Petitioner."

¶14Respondent contends that the statute subjects petitioner to the alternative minimum tax and that the legislative history does not leave room for any interpretation of the statute that would result in petitioner's not being subject to the alternative minimum tax.

¶15We agree with respondent.

¶162. Summary Judgment

¶17Summary judgment is a device used to expedite litigation; it is intended to avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. However, it is not a substitute for trial; it should not be used to resolve genuine disputes over material factual issues. Cox v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co., 249 F.2d 616, 618 (9th Cir. l957)*99 ; Vallone v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 794, 801 (1987). A decision will be rendered on a motion for summary judgment if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is not any genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(b).

¶18Because the effect of granting a motion for summary judgment is to decide the case against a party without allowing that party an opportunity for a trial, the motion should be "cautiously invoked" and granted only after a careful consideration of the case. Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 6, 89 L. Ed. 2013, 65 S. Ct. 1416 (1945); Cox v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co., 249 F.2d at 618; Kroh v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 383, 390 (1992).

¶19As we understand the parties' contentions, it is not necessary for us to know more of the facts in order to determine whether or not petitioner is subject to the alternative minimum tax for 2000. In light of the foregoing and petitioner's assertion that he does not dispute the correctness of respondent's calculations, we conclude*100 that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, within the meaning of Rule 121(b).

¶20Accordingly, we proceed to consider whether a decision may be rendered as a matter of law.

¶213. Alternative Minimum Tax

¶22Section 55 imposes a tax -- the alternative minimum tax -- equal to the excess (if any) of the tentative minimum tax over the regular tax. ⁵Sec. 55(a). Petitioner's regular tax is zero, and so his alternative minimum tax is his full tentative minimum tax. Using Form 6251 (Alternative Minimum Tax -- Individuals), respondent added back petitioner's appropriate itemized deductions to the amount by which petitioner's total itemized deductions exceeded his adjusted gross income. This operation resulted in petitioner's alternative minimum taxable income (sec. 55(b)(2)) being $ 38,707. From this amount, respondent subtracted petitioner's exemption amount. For 2000, in the case of a married person filing separately, this was $ 22,500. Sec. 55(d)(1)(C). This operation resulted in petitioner's "taxable excess" being $ 16,207. Sec. 55(b)(1)(A)(ii). To this amount respondent applied a 26-percent tax rate. Sec. 55(b)(1)(A)(i)(I). This operation resulted in petitioner's tentative minimum*101 tax being $ 4,214, which, as we noted supra, becomes petitioner's alternative minimum tax.

¶23In its unanimous opinion in Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55, 60, 75 L. Ed. 156, 51 S. Ct. 49 (1930), the Supreme Court gave us the following advice as to tax statutes:

     Courts have sometimes exercised a high degree of ingenuity

   in the effort to find justification for wrenching from the words



   of a statute a meaning which literally they did not bear in



   order to escape consequences thought to be absurd or to entail



   great hardship. But an application of the principle so nearly



   approaches the boundary between the exercise of the judicial



   power and that of the legislative power as to call rather for



   great caution and circumspection in order to avoid usurpation of

   the latter. *102Monson v. Chester, 39 Mass. 385, 22 Pick. 385, 387. It is

¶24   not enough merely that hard and objectionable or absurd

¶25   consequences, which probably were not within the contemplation

¶26   of the framers, are produced by an act of legislation. Laws

   enacted with good intention, when put to the test, frequently,



   and to the surprise of the law maker himself, turn out to be

   mischievous, absurd, or otherwise objectionable. But in such

   case the remedy lies with the law making authority, and not with

   the courts. See In re Alma Spinning Company, L.R. 16 Ch.

   Div. 681, 686; King v. Commissioner, 5 A. & E. 804, 816;

   Abley v. Dale, L.J. (1851) N.S. Pt. 2, Vol. 20, 233, 235. And

   see generally Chung Fook v. White, 264 U.S. 443, 445, 68 L. Ed. 781, 44 S. Ct. 361;

Commr. of Immigration v. Gottlieb, 265 U.S. 310, 313, 68 L. Ed. 1031, 44 S. Ct. 528.

¶27More recently, the Supreme Court's almost-unanimous opinion in Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386, 398, 78 L. Ed. 2d 549, 104 S. Ct. 756 (1984), told us the following about tax statutes:

     The cases before us, however, concern the construction of

   existing statutes. The relevant question*103 is not whether, as an

   abstract matter, the rule advocated by petitioners accords with

   good policy. The question we must consider is whether the policy

   petitioners favor is that which Congress effectuated by its

   enactment of section 6501. Courts are not authorized to rewrite a

   statute because they might deem its effects susceptible of

   improvement. See Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 194-195, 57 L. Ed. 2d 117, 98 S. Ct. 2279

   (1978). …

¶28See Rath v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 196, 200 (1993).

¶29We have noted some circumstances in which the alternative minimum tax could produce results that may be perceived as unfair. See, e.g., Kenseth v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 399, 407-408 (2000), affd. 259 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2001); Klaassen v. Commissioner, 83 AFTR 2d 99-1750, 99-1 USTC par. 50,418 (10th Cir. 1999), affg. T.C. Memo. 1998-241.

¶30The Congress did give some consideration to the treatment of lower-income people. The relevant relief that the Congress chose is embodied in section 55(d), which provides an exemption amount of $ 22,500 for petitioner for 2000. ⁶ We are not free to alter this amount, *104 or otherwise engage in "wrenching from the words of … [the] statute a meaning which literally they did not bear" (Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. at 60) in order to achieve the result petitioner seeks.

¶31Petitioner must look to the Congress for relief.

¶32An appropriate order will be issued denying petitioner's motion for summary judgment and granting respondent's motion for summary judgment. Decision will be entered for respondent.