I'm paying it. That comes under the definition of taxable income.
I really don't see any sense in pursuing this line. What are we going to say? Teresa should pay taxes on income that isn't taxable? Especially when we advocate reducing taxes across the board. I think it might make us look a little foolish. But that's just me.
The thrust of my observation is that if the bulk of taxable income is dividends and interest, you probably need some AMT to get to a 35% rate. (Heavy AMTI in the bond portfolio? "Taxable income" per form 1040 is not "AMTI".)
Be that as it may, the itemized deduction detail (which won't be released) would be far more interesting - particularly the "charitable contributions" recipients.