                     T.C. Summary Opinion 2007-104



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



       KEVIN CLARE AND SARAH LOUISE MOORE, Petitioners v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 18169-04S.               Filed June 21, 2007.


     Kevin Clare and Sarah Louise Moore, pro sese.

     Michael L. Boman, for respondent.



     GOLDBERG, 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.    Pursuant to section

7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any

other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent

for any other case.    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 petitioner’s Federal

income tax of $6,969 for the taxable year 2002.   The issues for

decision are whether petitioners are subject to the alternative

minimum tax provided by section 55 and interest on the liability

at issue.

                             Background

     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 the petition

was filed, petitioners resided in Columbia, Missouri.

     Petitioners reported adjusted gross income of $405,807,

including a long-term capital gain of $342,263, on their 2002

Federal Income Tax return.   They computed tax on the capital gain

at the maximum capital gains tax rate for 2002, 20 percent.    They

did not, however, compute or report alternative minimum tax.

Respondent sent petitioners a notice of deficiency in which

respondent determined that petitioners were subject to

alternative minimum tax on the long-term capital gain resulting

in a deficiency in the amount of $6,969.

     After receiving the notice of deficiency, petitioners

contacted the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) local office,

where they reviewed the figures on their 2002 return with an

agent.   It was during this phone call that petitioners believed

that there was a discrepancy between the figures in the IRS’s
                                - 3 -

records and their return.    The representative, who was reading

the figures from records kept in the IRS’s computer database,

explained that she did not have petitioners’ actual return in

that office, and that the reason for the discrepancy was due to

proposed adjustments made by the Commissioner to petitioners’

return.    Petitioners replied that they had not previously

received notice of those adjustments, and that the notice of

deficiency was their first indication of a potential change in

their 2002 income tax.

                             Discussion

     Petitioners’ challenge to the proposed deficiency is two-

fold.    First, petitioners testified at trial that the alternative

minimum tax should not apply to them because “[lines 1 and 91 of

Form 6251, Alternative Minimum Tax Computation] should be zero”

and not, $397,775, the amount petitioners believe that the IRS

arrived at.    Petitioners contend that this discrepancy is just

one example in a string of unexplained discrepancies since their

receipt of the notice of deficiency, and a symptomatic example of

why respondent’s computation should not be afforded credence by

this Court.    Second, petitioners maintain that the alternative

minimum tax, as applied to them, is inherently unfair because




     1
         We believe that petitioners meant to say line 39 on Form
1040.
                               - 4 -

Congress never intended the tax to apply to taxpayers “in [their]

situation.”

     Petitioners could not point out, with specificity, any other

discrepancies in figures between themselves and respondent other

than their repeated references to the aforementioned telephone

conversation that they had with respondent’s agent.   Moreover,

petitioners admitted under cross-examination that they did, in

fact, agree to the alternative minimum tax reported on the

computation that respondent’s Appeals Office calculated for them,

and that was stipulated and received into evidence in this case

as Exhibit 3-R.

     Finally, petitioner husband concluded his testimony at trial

with the following:   “I was willing, after seeing their

computations, I was willing to admit that I probably did owe

alternative minimum tax even though the IRS didn’t do a good job

in proving that to me.   I proved it to myself essentially.”

     Based on petitioners’ admission, and our review of

respondent’s computation, we hold that petitioners are subject to

the alternative minimum tax provided under section 55.

     As to petitioners’ argument that this Court should relieve

them of their tax obligations because “it would be unfair to

apply the alternative minimum tax to people like [them],” we

begin by addressing the event which triggered application of the

alternative minimum tax; in this case, the sale of petitioners’
                               - 5 -

farm property.   Since petitioners apparently did not purchase

another residence within 12 months, they were required to report

and accordingly, pay tax on, the proceeds from the sale as long

term capital gain.   While we sympathize with the fact that

petitioners are middle-income taxpayers who, without the proceeds

of sale, would not otherwise be subject to the alternative

minimum tax, we cannot change the facts, nor the statute, to

provide them with equitable relief. The triggering event in this

case was a one-time sale, making petitioners subject to the

alternative minimum tax.   It is simply beyond the purview of this

Court to decide otherwise.

     We also remind petitioners that this Court has consistently

and repeatedly rejected challenges to proposed deficiencies based

on the fairness of the alternative minimum tax.   Kenseth v.

Commissioner, 259 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2001), affg. 114 T.C. 399

(2000); Merlo v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 205 (2006); see also

Alexander v. IRS, 72 F.3d 938 (1st Cir. 1995), affg. T.C. Memo.

1995-51; Okin v. Commissioner, 808 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1987),

affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-199; Warfield v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 179

(1985); Huntsberry v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 742 (1984).

Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s proposed deficiency.

     Finally, as to the issue of interest, petitioner did not

either formally request an abatement of the interest on the

liability at issue as required under section 6404(e), nor did he
                                - 6 -

argue that the interest on the liability was the result of error

or delay on the part of an employee of the Internal Revenue

Service.   Sec. 6404(e).   Therefore, we have no jurisdiction over

this matter.



                                            Decision will be entered

                                        for respondent.
