Under current law, the number of taxpayers affected by the alternative minimum tax (AMT) is projected to rise from about 4 million in 2006 to more than 23 million in 2007 and more than 32 million in 2010. On average, taxpayers affected by the AMT in 2010 will owe an additional $3,600 in taxes. Two primary culprits are responsible for this impending explosion: the failure to index the AMT for inflation and the 20012006 tax cuts. This article illustrates the growth of the AMT that would have taken place if the different incarnations of the tax that have existed since 1990 were in place today and explains the reasons for the changes in the projections under each scenario.

Under current law, the number of taxpayers affected by the alternative minimum tax (AMT) is projected to rise from about 4 million in 2006 to more than 23 million in 2007 and more than 32 million in 2010. On average, taxpayers affected by the AMT in 2010 will owe an additional $3,600 in taxes. Two primary culprits are responsible for this impending explosion: the failure to index the AMT for inflation and the 20012006 tax cuts. This article illustrates the growth of the AMT that would have taken place if the different incarnations of the tax that have existed since 1990 were in place today and explains the reasons for the changes in the projections under each scenario.

Tax rate reductions on long-term capital gains and qualifying dividends were a key, highly touted component of the tax cuts passed in the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA). However, like the 20012006 tax cuts more broadly, taxpayers affected by the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) may not pay the advertised lower rates. This article explains the interaction between the capital gains rate and the AMT and provides example tax calculations for two sample taxpayers.