                        T.C. Memo. 1998-55



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                NORMAN EARL HOLLY, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 18414-96.                Filed February 10, 1998.



     Norman Earl Holly, pro se.

     Wendy Wojewodzki, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION



     PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge:    This case was heard

pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180,

181, and 182.1   Respondent determined a deficiency in

     1
        All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code
in effect for the year in issue, unless otherwise indicated. All
                                                   (continued...)
                               - 2 -


petitioner's 1994 Federal income tax in the amount of $1,675 and

an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) in the amount

of $335.

     After concessions by respondent,2 the only issue for

decision is whether petitioner is subject to the alternative

minimum tax (AMT) for the taxable year 1994.3

                         FINDINGS OF FACT

     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.   At the time of filing the

petition, petitioner resided at Silver Spring, Maryland.

     Petitioner timely filed his Federal income tax return for

the taxable year 1994.   On his return, petitioner reported

adjusted gross income in the amount of $49,379 and claimed

itemized deductions on Schedule A as follows:

             Expense                               Amount

     Real estate taxes                               $725

     1
      (...continued)
Rule references are to the tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
     2
        Respondent concedes that (1) petitioner is entitled to a
foreign tax credit in the amount of $239, and (2) petitioner is
not liable for the accuracy-related penalty under sec. 6662(a).
     3
        To the extent that petitioner seeks an abatement of
interest (or a review thereof), he must make such a request to
the Commissioner and await a final determination not to abate
interest. Sec. 6404(g); see also Bourekis v. Commissioner, 110
T.C. __, __ (1998) (slip op. at 9).
                                 - 3 -


     Charitable contributions                         885
     Unreimbursed job-related
       legal expenses                              30,247
     Moving expenses                                1,145

       Total                                       33,002

The taxable income reflected on line 37 of petitioner's return is

$13,927, and the total tax reflected on line 53 of the return,

after being reduced by a foreign tax credit, is $1,850.     During

the taxable year 1994, petitioner was a retired Government

employee.   On his return for the taxable year 1994, petitioner

indicated "Self-employed consultant" as his occupation.

     Respondent does not dispute the correctness of any item of

income, deduction, or credit reflected on petitioner's return for

the taxable year 1994.   Respondent, however, argues that

petitioner is subject to the AMT, and, accordingly, has

determined a deficiency in the amount of $1,675.   Petitioner

argues that the AMT was created to apply only to higher income

taxpayers, and, accordingly, the AMT is not applicable in this

instance because he was not a high income taxpayer during the

taxable year in issue.

                                OPINION

     Section 55(a) imposes an AMT on taxpayers to the extent that

their "tentative minimum tax", as calculated pursuant to section

55(b), exceeds the "regular tax", defined in section 55(c)(1) as

the regular tax liability for the taxable year reduced by the

foreign tax credit.   Section 55(b)(1)(A) provides that for
                                 - 4 -


noncorporate taxpayers, the tentative minimum tax is 26 percent

of the first $175,000 of "taxable excess" (alternative minimum

taxable income (AMTI) less the exemption amount) and 28 percent

of any remaining taxable excess.    AMTI is the taxable income of

the taxpayer for the taxable year, determined with the

adjustments provided in sections 56 and 58.       Sec. 55(b)(2).

Section 56(b)(1) provides that, for purposes of calculating AMTI,

no deduction is allowed for miscellaneous itemized deductions and

State and local real property taxes paid, unless such taxes are

deductible in determining adjusted gross income.       The exemption

amount for an unmarried taxpayer who is not a surviving spouse is

$33,750.   Sec. 55(d)(1)(B).

     We now turn to the question of whether respondent correctly

determined petitioner's AMT liability.       To compute petitioner's

AMT liability, respondent started with the amount of income

reported by petitioner on his return before deducting the

personal exemption ($16,337).4    Respondent then added to this

amount the deductions claimed for:       (1) Miscellaneous itemized

deductions ($30,247) and (2) real estate taxes ($725).       As a

result, respondent determined petitioner's AMTI to be $47,309.

Since this amount exceeded the exemption amount for unmarried

taxpayers by $13,559, respondent calculated the tentative minimum

     4
        Because of a mathematical error, the amount which should
have been reflected on petitioner's return and respondent's
computation is $16,377.
                                 - 5 -


tax to be 26 percent of this excess, or $3,525.       Since the amount

of regular tax reflected on petitioner's return was $1,850,

respondent determined that petitioner was liable for the AMT in

the amount of $1,675, the excess of the tentative minimum tax

over the regular tax reflected on petitioner's return.

     As indicated, petitioner argues that, since the AMT was

intended to apply only to wealthier individuals, it should not

apply to him in this instance.    Notwithstanding the mathematical

error explained supra note 4, we find no fault with respondent's

application of the AMT provisions or the method by which

respondent computed petitioner's AMT liability.       The plain

meaning of the AMT provisions is that the amounts claimed by

petitioner on Schedule A of his return for legal expenses and

real estate taxes paid are not deductible for purposes of

calculating AMTI.    Sec. 56(b)(1)(A).     Although the results may

seem harsh to petitioner in this case, Congress created the AMT

by enacting the applicable statutory provisions, and we do not

have the authority to disregard a legislative mandate.        Alexander

v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-51, affd. 72 F.3d 938, 946-947

(1st Cir. 1995).    Accordingly, we sustain respondent's

determination.

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                              Decision will be entered

                                         under Rule 155.
