                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2006-67



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



        GREGORY C. AND KRISTINE J. SCHICK, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 2078-05S.               Filed April 26, 2006.




     Gregory C. Schick, pro se.

     Margaret Martin, for respondent.



     PANUTHOS, Chief 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
                               - 2 -

Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule

references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

     Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for a

deficiency in Federal income tax of $7,364 for the 2003 taxable

year.   The issue for decision is whether, in the context of

respondent’s motion for summary judgment, petitioners are liable

for the alternative minimum tax (sometimes referred to as AMT)

for the 2003 taxable year.

                             Background

     At the time the petition was filed petitioners resided in

Concord, California.

     Petitioners timely filed a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income

Tax Return, for the 2003 taxable year (2003 income tax return).

Petitioners reported wages of $323,498.   Petitioners claimed

personal exemptions for themselves.    Some of petitioners’ claimed

itemized deductions on Schedule A were as follows:

     State and local income taxes                  $39,189
     Real estate taxes                               4,935
     Personal property taxes                           230

On line 40 of Form 1040, petitioners reported taxable income of

$270,521, and on line 41 of Form 1040, petitioners reported a tax

of $70,717.   Petitioners did not report an AMT on their 2003

income tax return.
                                 - 3 -

     In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that

petitioners were liable for an AMT of $7,364 for the 2003 taxable

year.

                              Discussion

     Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and

avoid unnecessary and expensive trials.     Fla. Peach Corp. v.

Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988).     Summary judgment may be

granted with respect to all or any part of the legal issues in

controversy “if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories,

depositions, admissions, and any other acceptable materials,

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and a decision may be

rendered as a matter of law.”    Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v.

Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th

Cir. 1994); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985).

     The Commissioner’s determination is presumed correct, and

generally, a taxpayer bears the burden of proving otherwise.

Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).1

        Section 55 imposes, in addition to all other taxes imposed

by subtitle A, an AMT on noncorporate taxpayers.    The

determination of a noncorporate taxpayer’s AMT requires a


     1
        The burden as to a factual issue relevant to the
liability for tax may shift to the Commissioner if certain
requirements are fulfilled. Sec. 7491(a). In the present case
there is no dispute of fact. Since we decide this case on the
legal issue, any issue as to the burden of proof is not relevant.
                                - 4 -

recomputation of taxable income, leading to a new tax base or an

alternative minimum taxable income.     Sec. 55(b)(2).   In making

the recomputation, and as relevant herein, certain (but not all)

itemized deductions are not allowed, nor is the personal

exemption.    In particular, section 56(b)(1)(A)(ii) states that no

itemized deduction for State and local taxes shall be allowed in

computing alternative minimum taxable income.     Further, section

56(b)(1)(E) states that no personal exemptions shall be allowed

in computing alternative minimum taxable income.     Finally,

section 56(b)(1)(F) states that section 68 (overall limitation on

itemized deductions) does not apply, therefore decreasing taxable

income by the amount of the section 68 reduction to itemized

deductions.

     Petitioners do not dispute the computation of the AMT as

determined by respondent.   Petitioners nevertheless contend that

the AMT is confusing and complex, and they are unclear as to why

they are liable for the AMT, which effectively deprives them of

the benefit of some itemized deductions.     Petitioners also make

reference to recent proposals by Congress to repeal or modify the

AMT and criticism of the AMT by the National Taxpayer Advocate.

     Congress established the alternative minimum taxable income

as a broad base of income in order to tax taxpayers more closely

on their economic income, intending for all taxpayers to pay

their fair share of the overall Federal income tax burden.      Allen
                               - 5 -

v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 1, 5 (2002).    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.   Sec. 55; Huntsberry v. Commissioner, 83 T.C.

742, 747-748 (1984).   In Huntsberry, we held that tax preferences

are a significant, but not necessarily an indispensable

component, of alternative minimum taxable income.    Thus, the

taxpayers in that case were subject to the AMT although they did

not have any tax preference items.     See also Klaassen v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-241, affd. without published

opinion 182 F.3d 932 (10th Cir. 1999).

     We are not unsympathetic to petitioners’ position.       There

have been proposals of some in Congress to change the law, and

further there have been well-intended criticisms by some relating

to the unintended effects of the provisions of the AMT.       In

Speltz v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 165, 176 (2005), we 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.]

     However unfair this statute might seem to petitioners, the

Court must apply the law as written.    As this Court noted in Hays

Corp. v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 436, 443 (1963), affd. 331 F.2d
                                 - 6 -

422 (7th Cir. 1964):   “The proper place for a consideration of

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

     Based on the foregoing, we are satisfied that respondent is

entitled to a judgment in his favor as a matter of law, and

respondent’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.

     Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                 An appropriate order granting

                          respondent’s motion and decision for

                          respondent will be entered.
