                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2001-77



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 EDWARD A. BIRTS, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 3914-00S.                       Filed June 4, 2001.


     Edward A. Birts, pro se.

     Marilyn S. Ames, for respondent.


     ARMEN, 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.1    The decision to be

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

should not be cited as authority.



     1
       Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent section
references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 1997,
the taxable year in issue.
                                - 2 -

     Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal

income tax for the taxable year 1997 in the amount of $2,982.

The deficiency is attributable solely to the alternative minimum

tax prescribed by section 55.

     The issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable for

alternative minimum tax.    We hold that he is.

Background

     Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so

found.    Petitioner resided in Houston, Texas, at the time that

his petition was filed with the Court.

     Petitioner filed a Federal income tax return, Form 1040, for

1997.    On his return, petitioner listed his filing status as

married filing separately, and he claimed deductions for two

personal exemptions.    Petitioner reported adjusted gross income

(AGI) in the amount of $37,850, consisting solely of wages from

employment.

     In addition, petitioner itemized deductions on Schedule A.

In this regard, petitioner claimed total deductions in the amount

of $28,403, consisting of charitable contributions in the amount

of $1,500 and miscellaneous itemized deductions (in the form of

unreimbursed employee expenses) in the net amount of $26,903,

calculated as follows:

         Miscellaneous itemized deductions
           (Unreimbursed employee expenses)    $27,660
         Less: 2% AGI                             -757
         Net amount                             26,903
                               - 3 -

     After taking into account itemized deductions and personal

exemptions, petitioner reported taxable income in the amount of

$4,147.   Using the tax table prescribed by section 3 for

individuals, petitioner reported tax in the amount of $619.

     Petitioner did not attach Form 6251, Alternative Minimum

Tax–Individuals, to his 1997 return, nor did petitioner report

any liability for alternative minimum tax on his return.

     In October 1999, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to

petitioner for the taxable year 1997.    In the notice, respondent

did not disallow any of the itemized deductions or personal

exemptions claimed by petitioner on his return.    Rather,

respondent determined that petitioner is liable for alternative

minimum tax, as prescribed by section 55, in the amount of

$2,982.

     Petitioner filed a petition contesting respondent’s

deficiency determination.   In the petition (as well as at trial),

petitioner contends that he is not the type of person who should

be liable for alternative minimum tax.

Discussion

     Deferring for the moment the fundamental issue whether

petitioner is liable for alternative minimum tax, the following

computation shows the proper amount of such tax:
                                     - 4 -
I.   Individual Income Tax Return - Form 1040

            Adjusted Gross Income
             (Form 1040, lines 32/33                         $37,850
            Less: Itemized Deductions
             (Schedule A)                                    -28,403
            Balance (Form 1040, Line 36)                       9,447
            Less: Exemptions
             (Form 1040, Line 37)                            -5,300
            Taxable Income
             (Form 1040, Line 38)                             4,147

            Tax (secs. 1(d), 3(c))                              619

            Regular Tax (secs. 26(b)(1), (2)(A), 55(c)(1))      619



II. Itemized Expenses - Schedule A

            Charitable Contributions                         $1,500
            Miscellaneous itemized deductions
              (Unreimbursed employee expenses)               +26,903
            Total Itemized Deductions                         28,403



III. Alternative Minimum Taxable Income

            Taxable Income (Form 1040, line 38)              $ 4,147
            Adjustments
               Miscellaneous itemized deductions
                 (Unreimbursed employee expenses)            +26,903
               Exemptions                                     +5,300
            Balance                                           36,350
            Plus: Items of Tax Preference                        -0-
            Alternative Minimum Taxable Income                36,350



IV. Alternative Minimum Tax

            Alternative Minimum Taxable Income               $36,350
            Less: Exemption Amount                           -22,500
            Taxable Excess                                    13,850
            Times: applicable AMT rate                         x 26%
            Tentative Minimum Tax                              3,601
            Less: Regular Tax                                   -619
            Alternative Minimum Tax                            2,982



       Our analysis necessarily begins with section 55, the section

of the Internal Revenue Code that imposes the alternative minimum

tax.    Initially, we note that the alternative minimum tax is
                               - 5 -

imposed in addition to the “regular tax” and that the regular tax

is, as relevant herein, the income tax computed on taxable income

by reference to the pertinent tax table.   Sec. 55(a), (c)(1); see

also sec. 26(b)(1), (2)(A).   In petitioner’s case, the regular

tax is $619.

     Pursuant to section 55(a), the alternative minimum tax is

the difference between the “tentative minimum tax” and the

regular tax.   In the case of a married individual who files a

separate return, and as relevant herein, the tentative minimum

tax is 26 percent of the excess of a taxpayer's “alternative

minimum taxable income” over an exemption amount of $22,500.2

See sec. 55(b)(1)(A), (b)(2), (d)(1)(C)(i).

     Section 55(b)(2) defines the term “alternative minimum

taxable income”.   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



     2
        In the case of a married individual who files a joint
return with his or her spouse, the exemption amount is $45,000.
See sec. 55(d)(1)(A)(i). It is possible, therefore, that
petitioner might not have been liable for alternative minimum tax
if he had filed a joint return with his spouse. However, sec.
6013(b)(2)(B) precludes the filing of a joint return after a
taxpayer files a separate return if the taxpayer files a timely
petition with this Court in respect of a notice of deficiency for
the year for which the notice is issued. Notwithstanding this
limitation, respondent offered to settle the present case on a
“deemed filed” basis; however, petitioner and/or petitioner’s
spouse declined the offer.
                                - 6 -

described in section 57.    Petitioner had no items of tax

preference in 1997.    Accordingly, alternative minimum taxable

income means petitioner’s taxable income determined with the

adjustments provided in section 56.

     Petitioner’s taxable income for 1997 was $4,147, the amount

reported on line 38 of Form 1040.

     As relevant herein, the adjustments provided in section

56(b) are twofold.    First, section 56(b)(1)(A)(i) states that no

deduction shall be allowed for any miscellaneous itemized

deduction as defined in section 67(b), such as unreimbursed

employee expenses, in computing alternative minimum taxable

income.    Second, section 56(b)(1)(E) states that no personal

exemptions shall be allowed in computing alternative minimum

taxable income.

     The effect of section 56(b)(1)(A)(i) and (b)(1)(E) is to

increase petitioner’s taxable income by: (1) $26,903, the amount

claimed on petitioner’s Schedule A for miscellaneous itemized

deductions (i.e., unreimbursed employee expenses); and (2)

$5,300, the amount claimed on petitioner’s Form 1040 for personal

exemptions.

     After taking into account the foregoing two adjustments,

petitioner’s alternative minimum taxable income for 1997 equals

$36,350.    Alternative minimum taxable income exceeds the

applicable exemption amount of $22,500 by $13,850.    See sec.
                                - 7 -

55(d)(1)(C)(i).   Petitioner’s “tentative minimum tax” is

therefore 26 percent of the excess, or $3,601.    Sec.

55(b)(1)(A)(i)(I), (iii).   Because petitioner’s tentative minimum

tax exceeds the regular tax of $619, petitioner is liable for the

alternative minimum tax in the amount of such excess; i.e.,

$3,601 less $619, or $2,982.    See sec. 55(a).

     Petitioner does not challenge the mechanics of the foregoing

computation.   Rather, petitioner contends that the alternative

minimum tax was not meant to apply to him because he is not

wealthy and had no items of tax preference.

     The clearest expression of legislative intent is found in

the actual language used by Congress in enacting legislation.     As

the Supreme Court has stated:    “There is * * * no more persuasive

evidence of the purpose of a statute than the words by which the

legislature undertook to give expression to its wishes.”     United

States v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 310 U.S. 534, 543

(1940); see Rath v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 196, 200 (1993)

(controlling effect will generally be given to the plain language

of a statute, unless to do so would produce absurd or futile

results).   Again as the Supreme Court has stated:

     in the absence of a clearly expressed legislative
     intention to the contrary, the language of the statute
     itself must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.
     Unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise,
     when we find the terms of a statute unambiguous,
     judicial inquiry is complete. [Burlington N. R.R. Co.
     v. Oklahoma Tax Commn., 481 U.S. 454, 461 (1987);
     citations and internal quotation marks omitted.]
                                - 8 -

       “The statutory scheme governing the imposition and

computation of the alternative minimum tax is clear and precise,

and leaves, on these facts, no room for interpretation.”     Okin v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-199, affd. per curiam 808 F.2d 1338

(9th Cir. 1987).    Thus, there is no justification, in the instant

case, to ignore the plain language of the statute, particularly

where, as here, “we have a complex set of statutory provisions

marked by a high degree of specificity.”    Huntsberry v.

Commissioner, 83 T.C. 742, 748 (1984).

       The alternative minimum tax serves to impose a tax whenever

the sum of specified percentages of the excess of alternative

minimum taxable income over the applicable exemption amount

exceeds the regular tax for the taxable year.    See sec. 55(a),

(b)(1)(A), (c), (d)(1); cf. Huntsberry v. Commissioner, supra at

744.    “Alternative minimum taxable income” essentially 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.

       In Huntsberry v. 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.   See Klaassen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

1998-241, affd. without published opinion 182 F.3d 932 (10th Cir.

1999).   The same result applies in the present case.

     If Congress had intended to tax only tax preferences, it

would have defined “alternative minimum taxable income”

differently, for example, solely by reference to items of tax

preference.   Instead, Congress provided for a tax measured by a

broader base, namely, alternative minimum taxable income, in

which tax preferences are merely included as potential

components.

     Absent some constitutional defect, we are constrained to

apply the law as written, see Estate of Cowser v. Commissioner,

736 F.2d 1168, 1171-1174 (7th Cir. 1984), affg. 80 T.C. 783, 787-

788 (1983), and we may not rewrite the law because we may “deem

its effects susceptible of improvement”, Commissioner v. Lundy,

516 U.S. 235, 252 (1996) (quoting Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464

U.S. 386, 398 (1984)).   Accordingly, petitioner’s appeal for

relief must, in this instance, be addressed to his elected

representatives.   “The proper place for a consideration of

petitioner’s complaint is the halls of Congress, not here.”     Hays

Corp. v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 436, 443 (1963), affd. 331 F.2d

422 (7th Cir. 1964).
                             - 10 -

     In view of the foregoing, we hold that petitioner is liable

for the alternative minimum tax.

     Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

     In order to reflect the foregoing,



                                          Decision will be entered

                                   for respondent.
