Publications by Topic
Topic: Individual Alternative Minimum Tax
The Opacity of Marginal Tax Rates (Article/Tax Facts)
Author(s):
Rosanne Altshuler , Jacob Goldin
Suppose that a taxpayer earns an additional dollar of
income. How much tax would she owe on that dollar? A
natural way to answer this question would be to look up
the taxpayer’s statutory tax rate - the tax rate corresponding
to her tax bracket and filing status.
Published: 10/21/09
Availability:
HTML
|
PDF
The Individual Alternative Minimum Tax: Historical Data and Projections, Updated October 2009 (Research Report)
Author(s):
Katherine Lim , Jeff Rohaly
The alternative minimum tax (AMT), which originally targeted high-income taxpayers, requires annual legislation to prevent it from affecting millions of middle-income individuals each year. There are two primary reasons for the AMT’s broadening impact; its parameters are not indexed for inflation and the 2001-2006 tax cuts reduced regular tax liability without changing AMT liability. In 2009, four million taxpayers will pay $33.5 billion in AMT, but without congressional action that number will rise to 27 million owing $102 billion in 2010. This paper describes the AMT and provides TPC’s latest estimates of AMT coverage, revenue, and distribution.
Published: 10/05/09
Availability:
HTML
|
PDF
AMT Coverage by State, 2007 (Article/Tax Facts)
Author(s):
Carol Rosenberg
Many taxpayers must calculate their federal income tax liability under two sets of rules: those applying to the regular income tax and those of the alternative minimum tax. If a taxpayer owes more tax under the alternative rules, then the difference is paid as AMT. The AMT hits people in some states harder than it does in others because state and local income and property taxes are not allowed as itemized deductions against the AMT and because income varies across states. This column discusses AMT participation rates by state.
Published: 08/19/09
Availability:
HTML
|
PDF
How Big Are Total Individual Income Tax Expenditures, and Who Benefits from Them? (Discussion Papers/Tax Policy Center)
Author(s):
Eric Toder , Leonard E. Burman , Christopher Geissler
Analysts often add up tax expenditures to estimate an aggregate cost, but those tallies are inaccurate because they ignore interactions among provisions. We estimate that interactions raise the cost of nonbusiness tax expenditures by 5 to 8 percent, depending on whether an AMT patch is in effect. In 2007, these tax expenditures totaled about $750 billion—5.5 percent of GDP. While tax expenditures benefit taxpayers in all income groups, high-income households gain more relative to income than low-income ones. Although the AMT eliminates some tax preferences, it increases overall tax expenditures because most AMT taxpayers face higher marginal tax rates.
Published: 12/04/08
Availability:
HTML
|
PDF
The Impact of the Presidential Candidates' Tax Proposals on Effective Marginal Tax Rates (Occasional Paper)
Author(s):
Katherine Lim , Jeff Rohaly
A taxpayer's effective marginal tax rate (EMTR) is the percentage of an additional dollar of income that would be paid in federal income tax. An individual's EMTR could affect the decision to work or save more, or avoid income tax. We use the TPC's microsimulation model of the federal tax system to calculate EMTRs under current law and under the presidential candidates' proposals. The Obama plan would lower EMTRs for the majority of households in 2009. Close to 80 percent of the population would see no change in their EMTR under Senator McCain's plan; most others would face lower rates.
Published: 09/30/08
Availability:
HTML
|
PDF
An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans (Research Report)
Author(s):
Leonard E. Burman , Surachai Khitatrakun , Greg Leiserson , Jeff Rohaly , Eric Toder , Roberton Williams
Tax and fiscal policy will loom large in the next president's domestic policy agenda. Nearly all of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 expire at the end of 2010 and the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) threatens to ensnare tens of millions of Americans. While a permanent fix palatable to both political parties has proven elusive, both candidates have proposed major tax changes. This report describes how we performed our modeling and analysis, outlines the major tax proposals, and discusses the implications of their policies for the revenue raised, taxpayer economic activity, and the distribution of the tax burden.
Published: 07/23/08
Availability:
HTML
|
PDF
An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Executive Summary (Summary)
Author(s):
Roberton Williams , Howard Gleckman
Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years, according to an updated analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. Compared to current law, TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.8 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion. Under current law, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would expire in 2010 and the Alternative Minimum Tax would remain in full force.
Published: 07/23/08
Availability:
HTML
|
PDF
Distribution of the 2001-2006 Tax Cuts: Updated Projections, July 2008 (Research Report)
Author(s):
Greg Leiserson , Jeff Rohaly
Since 2001, Congress has passed a major tax bill almost every year. Most have reduced taxes significantly and, since they were not accompanied by spending cuts, the resulting deficits have increased the national debt. The tax cuts total almost $2.2 trillion over ten years, and that total may be vastly understated if some or all of the cuts are extended beyond their scheduled expiration date of 2010. In addition, the cuts exacerbated the growing problem of the alternative minimum tax (AMT). Barring legislative action, more than 33 million taxpayers will fall prey to the AMT in 2010.
Published: 07/22/08
Availability:
HTML
|
PDF
The Individual Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT): 12 Facts and Projections (Research Report)
Author(s):
Leonard E. Burman , Julianna Koch , Greg Leiserson , Jeff Rohaly
Congress originally enacted a minimum tax in 1969 to guarantee that high-income individuals paid at least a minimal amount of tax. Under today’s alternative minimum tax (AMT), middle- and upper-income taxpayers must add a number of "preference items" to their taxable income, subtract a special AMT exemption, and calculate their tax according to the AMT rules. If the tax under those rules turns out to be higher than their regular income tax, taxpayers pay the difference as AMT. Unless Congress acts, 26.8 million taxpayers will be affected by the AMT in 2008.
Published: 07/03/08
Availability:
HTML
|
PDF
The Individual Alternative Minimum Tax: Historical Data and Projections: Updated June 2008 (Research Report)
Author(s):
Greg Leiserson , Jeff Rohaly
Congress enacted a minimum tax in 1969 to guarantee that high-income individuals paid at least some tax. The AMT now threatens to grow from a footnote in the tax code to a major component affecting tens of millions of taxpayers. Although most lower- and middle-income taxpayers will remain unaffected by it, policymakers need to deal with the explosive growth of the AMT from an obscure tax affecting only 20,000 filers in 1970 to one affecting more than 33 million-a third of all taxpayers-by 2010. This document provides updated estimates of AMT participation, revenue, and distribution.
Published: 06/25/08
Availability:
HTML
|
PDF
newsletter archive
by topic