Re: 2005 AMT Change Question


Richard Macdonald wrote:
> <KEBSCHULLW@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1137157511.704163.109400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Richard Macdonald wrote:
> >
> >> <KEBSCHULLW@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:1137102622.203875.61060@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >
> >> > Now here is the really BAD NEWS!. For years after 1986 the IRS
> >> > instruction for Line 7 on Form 6251 is FRAUDULENT! The only refunds
> >> > that are entered on Lines 10 and 21 are those from years when the
> >> > regular tax was paid. Section 56(b)(1)(D) of the IRC does not provide
> >> > for the exclusion of refunds from AMTI that were deductible under
> >> > section 164(a) of the IRC when ther regular tax was paid.
> >>
> >> He still does not realize tnat in years when regular tax is greater that
> >> AMT,
> >> that AMT WAS PAID and the taxes were not allowed for the AMT and
> >> are thus not includable in future years for AMTI.
> >
> > Lil Richard "Tax'em Double or Nothing" Macdonald:
> >
> > Let me give you a little clue.
> >
> > Since section 56(A)(ii) of the IRC APPLIES IN LIEU of the treatment
> > applicable for purposes of computing the regular tax, section
> > 56(b)(1)(D) only applies to the refunds of taxes that were not
> > deductible in the years that the AMT was PAID. Like what part of "IN
> > LIEU OF" don't you and your buddies at IRS understand?
>
> And in any year that regular tax exceeds AMT, the AMT IS PAID.

Publication 525 uses TOTAL TAX to determine if there was a tax benefit
when the AMT was paid.

TOTAL TAX = TAX + ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX + .....

It is right there on Page 2 of Form 1040.

If Congress intended that all refunds of deductible taxes under
section 164(a) be excluded from alternative minimum taxable income then
section 56(b)(1)(D) would have read as follows:

(D) Treatment of certain recoveries

No recovery of any tax to which paragraphs (1), (2), or (3) of section
164(a) applied shall be included in gross income for purposes of
determining alternative minimum taxable income.

But that ain't what section 56(b)(1)(D) says. If it did the clueless
clowns at IRS would, no doubt, include refunds for taxes from years
when the "AMT" was paid, i.e. A(ii) applied in lieu of section 164(a)
in the calculation of AMTI. Then the refund of a tax that was not
allowed as a deduction in the prior year would be tax.

Cheers,

WDK

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT Dims want to raise taxes (News? ROFLMAO)
    ... I find it amazing that the AMT takes away the hybrid tax credit, ... nation's wealthiest households. ... Democrats on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: OT Dims want to raise taxes (News? ROFLMAO)
    ... from the expensive bite of the alternative minimum tax are considering ... nation's wealthiest households. ... lower AMT bills for families making $250,000 to $500,000. ... Democrats on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: OT Dims want to raise taxes, again
    ... That so called 2% currently pay almost 50% of all the taxes paid to the US ... Why not simply remove the AMT? ... The last tax rate cuts is why today the federal and state governments are ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Beware the complicated and costly AMT
    ... Beware the complicated and costly AMT ... These folks are simply trying to use the tax code, legally, to lower their ... The AMT was designed in 1969 to ensure that wealthy taxpayers didn't use ... loopholes to escape paying their fair share of taxes. ...
    (misc.taxes)
  • Re: State income tax refund & AMT credit
    ... credibility with respect to the tax treatment of tax refunds and who is ... Your post on AMT was correct until you went off on your usual ... income for years where AMT was paid and then claim part of the IRS ... when the overpayment is in a year the regular tax is paid and the AMT ...
    (misc.taxes)