Can anyone point me to the actual details of the AMT change in the stimulus bill?

[muriel_volestrangler]

I don't mean the soundbite "this will save 20 million Americans from the AMT" stuff that the journalists come up with; nor the "this will save someone on $75,000 $500" estimates for a mythical average person (couple? The articles I read don't even specify).

I know this may be some dry-as-dust government document, but I'm willing to try it. Because, for instance, one fairly specific report (written last Saturday) says:

The proposal under consideration would raise the alternative minimum tax exemption in 2009 for single filers to $46,700 in taxable income from $46,200 in 2008; and for joint filers to $70,950 in 2009 from $69,950 last year

http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/biz/content/business/2009/02/07/biz_liberman0208.html

And yet, others say things like "The fix would save some 20 million mainly upper-middle-income taxpayers about $2,000 in taxes for 2009". Really? a change in the exemption of $500 or $1000 could save them $2000 in taxes? It doesn't add up. Get a bigger exemption, and you save the 26% or 28% of that increase.

So, anyone have a link to real figures, not the reporters' talking points?

[BalancedGoat]

1. Here.

PART II—ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF
SEC. 1011. EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF FOR NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) (relating to special rule for taxable years 2000 through 2008) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘or 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘2008, or 2009’’, and
(2) by striking ‘‘2008’’ in the heading thereof and inserting ‘‘2009’’.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this
section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008.
SEC. 1012. EXTENSION OF INCREASED ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX EXEMPTION AMOUNT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) (relating to exemption amount) is amended
(1) by striking ‘‘($69,950 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2008)’’ in subparagraph (A) and inserting ‘‘($70,950 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2009)’’, and
(2) by striking ‘‘($46,200 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2008)’’ in subparagraph (B) and inserting ‘‘($46,700 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2009)’’.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008.

That's exactly how it appears in the bill. The original AMT was never tied to inflation so they "fix" it year by year. You'll notice that one of the two things they change is "2008" to "2008 or 2009". Those figures you quote are higher than you think they should be because 2008's exemptions are for that year only and so they calculate the difference between what's above and no "fix" at all. This isn't exactly a tax cut, it's prevention of what would essentially raise taxes for many americans.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Thank you - so they're comparing it to what would happen

if they let it all revert to the pre-2000 levels ($45,000 for a couple, $33,750 for an individual). Yeah, I can see that could affect a lot of people; but I can also see that at least keeping it at the 2008 levels would be pretty much agreed by everyone. I'm surprised they haven't bitten the bullet at some time, and come up with some wording about "and subsequent years", even if they don't want to build in an inflation allowance, rathe than the never-ending list of years to which it applies.