T.C. Memo. 2008-267



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



          JAMES M. AND CHAU L. SHERMAN, Petitioners v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 6705-06.                Filed December 1, 2008.



     Paul J. Peter, for petitioners.

     Albert B. Kerkhove, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     THORNTON, Judge:      Respondent determined a $2,181 deficiency

in petitioners’ 2003 Federal income tax.     The parties submitted

this case fully stipulated pursuant to Rule 122.1    When they



     1
       All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code in effect for the taxable year at issue.
                              - 2 -

petitioned the Court and at all other times relevant to this

proceeding, petitioners resided in Vietnam.

                          Background

     On their 2003 Federal income tax return as originally filed,

petitioners reported taxable income of $120,174 and claimed a

foreign tax credit of $23,829 against reported U.S. income tax

liability of the same amount, resulting in zero tax due.

Petitioners reported no alternative minimum tax (AMT) liability.

     In the notice of deficiency respondent determined, on the

basis of the taxable income that petitioners had reported on

their return, that they owed AMT of $2,181 after allowance of a

$19,626 foreign tax credit as limited by section 59(a)(2).

Subsequently, petitioners filed an amended 2003 Federal income

tax return reporting a $3,526 decrease in their originally

reported taxable income and a resulting $90 decrease in the

$2,181 of AMT respondent previously determined.   On their amended

return petitioners also claimed $3,130 as “Estimated tax

payments, including amount applied from prior year’s return”,

resulting in a claimed overpayment of $949.

                           Discussion

     The petition broadly asserts that respondent has erred in

determining a deficiency, has improperly computed AMT, has failed

“to reconcile past payments to satisfy obligations that may have

existed for the year in question”, and has provided petitioners
                              - 3 -

“conflicting information” as to their tax liability.   Contrary to

Rule 34(b)(5), however, the petition contains no clear statements

of facts on which these assignments of error are based.2

Petitioners having filed no brief, we are left in doubt as to the

exact nature and basis of their claim for relief.

     On brief respondent construes petitioners’ claims as

challenging the operation of section 59(a)(2) in limiting their

foreign tax credit for purposes of calculating AMT.3   If that is

the basis of their claims, it would appear contrary to

petitioners’ reporting position on their amended tax return

wherein they appeared to accept respondent’s AMT computation

except for a small reduction that they showed as resulting from a

decrease in their taxable income that they also reported on their

amended return but have not pursued in this proceeding.    In any

event, we find no basis in the record for concluding that

respondent erred in applying section 59(a)(2)(A) in computing


     2
       The petition asserts as the facts upon which petitioners
rely that respondent’s alternative minimum tax (AMT) computations
for the year at issue relate back to similar disputes for earlier
years, that petitioners have computed AMT correctly for all
years, that they have received conflicting information from
respondent in this regard, and that they have requested a
collection hearing pursuant to sec. 6330 for unspecified years.
     3
       Sec. 55(a) imposes AMT in an amount equal to the excess,
if any, of the “tentative minimum tax” for the taxable year over
the taxpayer’s “regular tax” for that year. That excess amount
is paid in addition to any regular tax owed. Noncorporate
taxpayers may reduce their tentative minimum tax by a foreign tax
credit that generally is limited to 90 percent of the tentative
minimum tax. Secs. 55(b)(1)(A), 59(a)(2)(A).
                                - 4 -

petitioners’ AMT.   See Pekar v. Commissioner, 

, 160-

161 (1999); Kappus v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-36, affd. 

(D.C. Cir. 2003).

     On brief respondent construes petitioners’ claims as also

seeking a carryover of unused foreign tax credits pursuant to

section 904(c).   Respondent contends that petitioners have failed

to substantiate entitlement to any such carryover.     We agree.

     Insofar as petitioners mean to claim entitlement to an

overpayment, they have put forward neither argument nor evidence

to support it.    Moreover, petitioners’ allegation that respondent

has provided them “inconsistent information” presents no

cognizable basis for relief.


                                          Decision will be entered

                                     for respondent.