                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2002-151



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



          ARTHUR O. & WANDA E. TREVINO, Petitioners v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 5284-01S.               Filed November 21, 2002.



     Arthur O. Trevino and Wanda E. Trevino, pro sese.

     Michael D. Zima, for respondent.



     DINAN, Special Trial Judge:    This case was heard pursuant to

the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in

effect at the time the petition was filed.    The decision to be

entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion

should not be cited as authority.   Unless otherwise indicated,

subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in

effect for the year in issue.
                                  - 2 -

     Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners’ Federal

income tax of $2,483 for the taxable year 1998.

     The issue for decision is whether and to what extent

petitioners are liable for the alternative minimum tax (AMT).

     Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

The stipulations of fact and the attached exhibits are

incorporated herein by this reference.        Petitioners resided in

Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, on the date the petition was filed in this

case.

     There are no disputed facts in this case.          During 1998,

petitioners’ primary sources of income were petitioner husband’s

Federal government salary of $56,746 and a distribution from his

Federal retirement account of $97,796.        Petitioners filed a joint

Federal income tax return for taxable year 1998.          On that return

they reported a foreign tax credit of $34,616 and zero tax

liability.    They also reported zero liability for the AMT.          In

the statutory notice of deficiency, respondent determined that

petitioners are liable for the AMT in the amount of $2,483.             This

is in accord with our calculation under section 55(a), which is

as follows:

     Taxable income reported by petitioners1                     $129,603
     Exemption deductions claimed by petitioners                   10,800
     Itemized deduction claimed by petitioners for taxes paid         999
     Amount of section 68(a) limitation on itemized deductions       (897)
     Alternative minimum taxable income                           140,505
     Exemption amount                                             (45,000)
     Taxable excess                                                95,505

     Pre-credit tentative minimum tax (26% of taxable excess)     24,831
     AMT foreign tax credit (limited to 90% of $24,831)          (22,348)
                                   - 3 -
     Tentative minimum tax                                          2,483
     Regular tax                                                      -0-
     Section 55(a) AMT liability                                    2,483
           1
             The amount listed here as taxable income reflects a computational
     adjustment made to the amount of taxable income reported on petitioners’
     return: Petitioners did not apply the itemized deduction limitation of
     sec. 68(a), which requires a subtraction of $897 from their claimed
     itemized deductions.

     Petitioners contend that their tax liability “was

intentionally miscalculated” by the IRS.          However, as we noted,

respondent’s calculation of petitioners’ tax liability is in

accordance with the law.      Petitioners further state that the

“issue here is about prejudice and harassment to Puerto Rican

taxpayers,” and petitioners question the general treatment of

residents of Puerto Rico under the Internal Revenue Code.             This

Court is not the proper place for these arguments.            We cannot

evaluate the fairness of the law but must apply it as it is

written; it is up to Congress to address questions of fairness

and to make improvements to the law.         Metzger Trust v.

Commissioner, 76 T.C. 42, 59-60 (1981), affd. 693 F.2d 459 (5th

Cir. 1982).

     Petitioners do contest two specific aspects of the AMT

calculation.   First, they dispute the treatment of the itemized

deduction they claimed on their return for mortgage interest.

This treatment is in fact beneficial to petitioners.            Petitioners

had listed this deduction as an adjustment on the Form 6251,

Alternative Minimum Tax--Individuals, which they filed with their

return.   Respondent determined that this was not a proper
                                   - 4 -

adjustment.    Because this adjustment would have increased

alternative minimum taxable income and thereby increased AMT

liability, respondent’s determination in this regard is in

petitioners’ favor.

       Second, petitioners dispute the reduced amount of foreign

tax credit which may be used in calculating the tentative minimum

tax.    They argue that they should not be required to pay Federal

income tax when the amount of income taxes paid to Puerto Rico is

greater than their regular (non-AMT) Federal tax liability.           We

have already found that respondent correctly calculated

petitioners’ tax liability for the year in issue as required by

the Internal Revenue Code.    In particular, respondent correctly

applied the AMT foreign tax credit limitation of section

59(a)(2)(A).    See generally Pekar v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 158,

164-165 (1999) (noting the constitutionality of the foreign tax

credit limitation with respect to the AMT).         Again, petitioners’

dispute is essentially political as it is directed at the manner,

albeit an indirect manner, in which Congress has chosen to tax

United States citizens who reside in Puerto Rico.

       Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

       To reflect the foregoing,

                                           Decision will be entered

                                   for respondent.
