The individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) was originally designed to limit the amount of tax sheltering and to assure that high-income filers paid at least some tax. The current AMT, however, has strayed from those original goals and under current law the tax will affect over 23 million taxpayers in 2007. This brief examines a variety of implications of AMT repeal or reform and an array of options for offsetting the revenues lost under such options. The ideal solution would be to address the AMT in the context of a complete overhaul of the income tax, such as the proposal made by the Presidents Advisory Panel on Federal Income Tax Reform.

The individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) was originally designed to limit the amount of tax sheltering and to assure that high-income filers paid at least some tax. The current AMT, however, has strayed from those original goals and under current law the tax will affect over 23 million taxpayers in 2007. This brief examines a variety of implications of AMT repeal or reform and an array of options for offsetting the revenues lost under such options. The ideal solution would be to address the AMT in the context of a complete overhaul of the income tax, such as the proposal made by the Presidents Advisory Panel on Federal Income Tax Reform.

This article examines variations in tax liability and tax rates confronting typical families as income and the number of children change for tax year 2006. Although the examples represent very simple tax situations, they illustrate how hidden taxes and subsidies can make the marginal tax rate an amalgam of different effects. Often, the effective marginal tax rates and average tax rates can vary significantly from the statutory tax rates because of the phase-ins and phase-outs of deductions and credits, the individual alternative minimum tax, progressive tax schedules, and other aspects of our income tax system.