                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2007-103



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                   ABDUL KAMARA, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 19016-05S.             Filed June 21, 2007.



     Allen S. Lokensky (specially recognized), for petitioner.

     Alex Shlivko, for respondent.



     NIMS, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions

of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the

petition was filed.   Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to

be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion
                                - 2 -

shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.    Unless

otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal

Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.

     Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s 2003

Federal income tax in the amount of $4,176.    The issue for

decision is whether petitioner is liable for the alternative

minimum tax (AMT) for the 2003 taxable year.

                            Background

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

The stipulation of facts and related exhibits are incorporated

herein by this reference.

     At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in

New York, New York.

     Petitioner timely filed a 2003 Form 1040, U.S. Individual

Income Tax Return, for the year ended December 31, 2003.    The

return was prepared by Allen Lokensky, a public accountant.       On

the return petitioner indicated his status as head of household

and claimed his parents as dependents.   In 2003, petitioner

worked as a licensed practical nurse for St. Mary’s Center, Inc.,

and De Sales Assisted Living.   He reported $121,309 in Form W-2,

Wage and Tax Statement, wages on his return.

     Petitioner deducted $35,017 of itemized deductions for 2003.

On Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, petitioner claimed: $6,450 of

medical and dental expenses, $10,298 of State and local income
                                - 3 -

taxes, $4,203 of other taxes, $7,680 of gifts to charity, $13,762

of unreimbursed employee business expenses, $250 of tax

preparation fees, and $1,250 of attorney and accounting fees.

       Petitioner calculated his total income tax liability to be

$14,976.    Petitioner failed to include any AMT or attach Form

6251, Alternative Minimum Tax--Individuals.    After subtracting

$13,137 for Federal income tax withheld and $2,225 for excess

Social Security tax withheld, petitioner requested a refund in

the amount of $386.

       On July 12, 2005, respondent issued to petitioner a notice

of deficiency for his 2003 Federal income tax.    Respondent

determined a deficiency of $4,176, which was attributable to the

AMT.    Petitioner filed a petition seeking redetermination of the

deficiency.

       Petitioner has conceded that respondent’s arithmetic in

computing petitioner’s AMT is correct.    Petitioner has also

conceded that respondent computed the alternative minimum tax in

accordance with the Internal Revenue Code.    Petitioner

nevertheless contends that respondent inappropriately applied the

AMT to his circumstances.

                             Discussion

       Section 55 imposes an AMT in addition to all other taxes

imposed by subtitle A.    A taxpayer’s AMT liability is the amount

by which the taxpayer’s tentative tax exceeds his or her regular
                                 - 4 -

tax.    Sec. 55(a).   For noncorporate taxpayers, the tentative tax

is calculated by using the taxpayer’s alternative minimum taxable

income.    Sec. 55(b)(1)(A).   As relevant to the case before us,

alternative minimum taxable income is a recomputation of taxable

income without the benefit of certain itemized deductions and

personal exemptions.    See secs. 55(b)(2), 56(b).   Pursuant to

this statutory scheme, respondent calculated petitioner’s AMT

liability to be $4,176.

       As previously mentioned, petitioner does not challenge

respondent’s calculation of his AMT liability and agrees that the

calculation was in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code.

Petitioner’s objection is simply that respondent erred in

applying the AMT to petitioner.     He asserts that Congress did not

intend for the AMT to apply to taxpayers like him, who are in the

nonwealthy working class.      He believes he should not be subject

to the AMT since he works two jobs, night shifts, weekends, and

overtime to support his family.     Petitioner also points out that

he did not claim any tax preferences that are targets of the AMT.

(Items of tax preference are described in section 57 and include

depletion, intangible drilling costs, tax-exempt interest,

certain accelerated depreciation or amortization, and exclusion

for gains on sale of certain small business stock.)
                               - 5 -

     Petitioner provides no authority to support his position.

His arguments are based on criticisms of the AMT in newspaper

articles and his misreading of Internal Revenue Service

Publication 17, Your Federal Income Tax.    These are not

authoritative sources of Federal tax law.    See Zimmerman v.

Commissioner, 71 T.C. 367, 371 (1978), affd. without published

opinion 614 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir. 1979).

     Furthermore, petitioner’s arguments have been previously

rejected by this Court.   As set forth in the statute, the AMT

does apply to lower-income taxpayers, not just the wealthy.     See

Katz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-97; Prosman v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-87.   Although tax preferences play

a part in the computation of the AMT, a taxpayer may still be

liable for the AMT even if he claimed no tax preferences.

Huntsberry v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 742, 744 (1984).

     We are not unsympathetic to petitioner’s concerns about the

AMT’s reach.   This Court has stated:

          The unfortunate consequences of the AMT in various
     circumstances have been litigated since shortly after the
     adoption of the AMT. In many different contexts, literal
     application of the AMT has led to a perceived hardship, but
     challenges based on equity have been uniformly rejected.
     [Citations omitted.]

Speltz v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 165, 176 (2005), affd. 454 F.3d

782 (8th Cir. 2006).   Congress enacted the AMT provisions, and we
                                 - 6 -

have no authority to disregard them.     See Holly v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 1998-55.   Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s

deficiency determination.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                           Decision will be entered

                                     for respondent.
