CRS Examines Alternative Minimum Tax Projections
RS22083
- AuthorsMaguire, Steven
- Institutional AuthorsCongressional Research Service
- Code Sections
- Subject Area/Tax Topics
- Jurisdictions
- LanguageEnglish
- Tax Analysts Document NumberDoc 2011-8613
- Tax Analysts Electronic Citation2011 TNT 78-21
Steven Maguire
Specialist in Public Finance
April 18, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22083
Summary
The alternative minimum tax (AMT) is a second federal income tax that operates along side the regular income tax. The AMT is intended to ensure that all taxpayers pay at least a minimum amount of tax on income. The AMT disallows or otherwise limits a variety of exemptions and deductions to achieve this objective. Specifically, personal exemptions, itemized deductions for state/local taxes, and miscellaneous itemized deductions account for 96% of the preference items that are subject to tax under the AMT but not subject to tax under the regular income tax. As a result, over certain income ranges, taxpayers who claim itemized deductions for state and local taxes, claim miscellaneous deductions, or have large families are more likely to fall under the AMT than taxpayers who do not have these characteristics.
In 2009, 3.88 million taxpayers were subject to the AMT, a slight decline from 3.95 million taxpayers in 2008. In 2008, New Jersey, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, New York, and Maryland had the highest percentage of taxpayers subject to the AMT. Tennessee, Alaska, South Dakota, Mississippi, and Alabama had the lowest percentage of taxpayers subject to the AMT.
In 2012, absent an increase of the AMT exemption amount, 34.4 million taxpayers will be subject to the AMT. At that time, whether a married taxpayer has itemized deductions for state and local taxes or miscellaneous deductions will become a much less important factor than it is at present in determining AMT coverage. This occurs because, whether they itemize their deductions or not, married taxpayers across a wide range of incomes will be subject to the AMT because personal exemptions are not allowed against the AMT.
The President's FY2012 Budget proposes an alternative budget baseline where the AMT is permanently indexed for inflation based on 2011 parameters. The estimated revenue loss, assuming the tax cuts enacted from 2001 to 2003 are extended for middle income taxpayers, would be $1.55 trillion. The House-approved FY2012 budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 34, provides for the extension of the tax cuts for all taxpayers and lowers the highest bracket for corporations and individuals. H.Con.Res. 34 also provides for patching the AMT for all taxpayers such that the number of taxpayers subject to the AMT is less than or equal to the number affected by it in 2008.
This report will be updated as legislative action warrants or as new data become available.
Contents
Tables
Table 1. Number of Alternative Minimum Taxpayers by State, Tax Year
2007
Table 2. Number of Alternative Minimum Taxpayers by State, Tax Year
2008
Table 3. Estimated Number of Alternative Minimum Taxpayers by State,
Tax Year 2012
Contacts
Author Contact Information
The alternative minimum tax for individuals (AMT) was originally enacted to ensure that high-income taxpayers paid a fair share of the federal income tax. However, the lack of indexation of the AMT coupled with the recent reductions in the regular income tax has greatly expanded the potential impact of the AMT.1
Temporary increases in the AMT exemptions expire at the end of 2011. In 2012, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that 34.4 million taxpayers will be subject to the AMT.2 Taxpayers with incomes in the $200,000 to $500,000 income range will be the hardest hit.3
Itemized deductions for state and local taxes (62.7%), personal exemptions (22.4%), and miscellaneous itemized deductions (11.4%) together account for 96% of the preference items that are subject to tax under the AMT but not subject to tax under the regular income tax.4 As a result, over certain income ranges, taxpayers who claim itemized deductions for state and local taxes, claim miscellaneous deductions, and/or have large families are more likely to fall under the AMT than taxpayers who do not have these characteristics.
Table 1 and Table 2 show for 2007 and 2008 (the latest state-by-state data), respectively, the percentage of taxpayers in each state that were subject to the AMT. Of all the states, Tennessee, Alaska, South Dakota, Mississippi, and Alabama had the smallest percentage of taxpayers subject to the AMT. In these five states, roughly 1% of taxpayers were on the AMT in 2008. These are states in which either many taxpayers have relatively low incomes, or state and local taxes that are deductible from the federal income tax are relatively low. As a result of the combination of these factors, taxpayers in these states tend not to itemize their deductions and hence, are less likely to be subject to the AMT than taxpayers in other states.5
On the other hand, New Jersey, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, New York, and Maryland were the states with the largest percentage of taxpayers subject to the AMT. For instance, in New Jersey, about 62 out of every 1,000 taxpayers fell under the AMT in 2008. In these states, many taxpayers have relatively high incomes and the state and local tax burden is also relatively high. The combination of these factors produces a larger number of itemizers and, consequently, a larger percentage of taxpayers being captured by the AMT.
Note that absent legislative change (an AMT patch), whether a married taxpayer has itemized deductions for state and local taxes and/or miscellaneous deductions will become a less important factor in determining whether taxpayers are subject to the AMT. This will result because, if the AMT is not modified, then across a broad range of the income spectrum all married taxpayers will be subject to the AMT whether they itemize their deductions or not.
The potentially expanding impact of the AMT has been mitigated through temporary increases in the basic exemption for the AMT and temporary changes that allow taxpayers to use nonrefundable personal tax credits to reduce their AMT liabilities. In December 2007, The Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2007 (TIPA, P.L. 110-166) patched the AMT for the 2007 tax year. In October 2008, The Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act (which was included with the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, P.L. 110-343), extended the AMT patch for the 2008 tax year.
In the 111th Congress, P.L. 111-5, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, included a one-year patch for the 2009 tax year. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (TRUIRJCA, P.L. 111-312), patched the AMT for 2010 and 2011 tax years. Under TRUIRJCA, the 2010 exemptions amounts are $47,450 for individuals and $72,450 for joint filers. For 2011, the exemption amounts increase to $48,450 and $74,450, respectively. In 2012, absent legislative change, the AMT exemption reverts to $45,000 for joint returns ($35,750 for unmarried taxpayers), and some nonrefundable tax credits are not allowed against AMT liability.
Because the AMT patch expires at the end of 2011, in 2012 roughly 34.4 million taxpayers will likely be subject to the AMT if no patch is enacted.6 An increase of this magnitude will affect taxpayers in every state, regardless of whether taxpayers in that state itemize and deduct their state/local taxes and/or miscellaneous deductions from their federal tax returns.
For example, 26,873 taxpayers in Tennessee were subject to the AMT in 2008. Thus, Tennessee taxpayers accounted for only 0.68% of the total AMT returns filed in the United States that year. However, if that percentage of total AMT returns remains constant, then in 2010 roughly 171,000 (0.68% times 25.2 million) taxpayers in Tennessee could be affected by the AMT.
Table 3 shows the potential number of AMT returns by state in 2012 if the patch to the AMT is not extended. The CRS calculations are an extrapolation based on the assumption that the ratio of AMT taxpayers in each state to total AMT taxpayers in the entire country will remain the same in 2012 as it was in 2008. The methodology makes assumptions that could be challenged, but still provides a reasonable estimate of the potential impact of the AMT in 2012 absent legislative changes.
The President's FY2012 alternative budget baseline proposes a permanently indexed AMT based on the 2011 parameters. The revenue loss is $1.55 trillion with the assumption that the tax cuts enacted from 2001 to 2003 are also extended for all but the highest income earners.7 These proposed tax cuts are not extended to joint filers with income over $250,000, single filers with income over $200,000, and heads of household with income over $225,000. The House-approved FY2012 budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 34, provides for the extension of the tax cuts for all taxpayers and lowers the highest bracket for corporations and individuals. H.Con.Res. 34 also provides for patching the AMT for all taxpayers "to prevent a larger number of taxpayers as compared with tax year 2008 from being subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax or of allowing the use of nonrefundable personal credits against the Alternative Minimum Tax, or both as applicable."
Table 1. Number of Alternative Minimum Taxpayers
by State, Tax Year 2007
(returns in thousands)
_____________________________________________________________________
AMT
Returns
Number of as % of
Rank State Returns AMT Returns Total
_____________________________________________________________________
U.S.A. 154,707,511 4,161,402 2.69%
46 Alabama 2,353,773 25,558 1.09%
49 Alaska 370,608 3,783 1.02%
32 Arizona 2,898,544 49,759 1.72%
44 Arkansas 1,392,997 18,088 1.30%
7 California 17,601,109 741,735 4.21%
15 Colorado 2,455,161 58,201 2.37%
2 Connecticut 1,868,063 99,030 5.30%
19 Delaware 454,863 10,129 2.23%
3 District of Columbia 316,370 15,954 5.04%
33 Florida 9,688,136 165,763 1.71%
16 Georgia 4,560,422 106,445 2.33%
26 Hawaii 694,035 13,325 1.92%
29 Idaho 722,486 12,817 1.77%
11 Illinois 6,559,358 166,774 2.54%
39 Indiana 3,243,323 46,757 1.44%
36 Iowa 1,538,656 24,746 1.61%
22 Kansas 1,401,460 29,916 2.13%
37 Kentucky 2,137,383 31,061 1.45%
38 Louisiana 2,146,273 31,010 1.44%
23 Maine 729,634 14,522 1.99%
5 Maryland 2,942,776 131,225 4.46%
6 Massachusetts 3,461,517 150,262 4.34%
28 Montana 513,585 9,115 1.77%
25 Nebraska 918,101 17,759 1.93%
42 Nevada 1,347,663 18,223 1.35%
20 New Hampshire 723,686 15,866 2.19%
1 New Jersey 4,576,940 276,751 6.05%
43 New Mexico 980,234 13,140 1.34%
4 New York 9,919,336 497,746 5.02%
18 North Carolina 4,601,888 104,844 2.28%
45 North Dakota 343,631 4,047 1.18%
17 Ohio 6,119,067 139,766 2.28%
41 Oklahoma 1,772,353 24,568 1.39%
13 Oregon 1,911,229 45,618 2.39%
14 Pennsylvania 6,697,189 159,416 2.38%
10 Rhode Island 568,249 15,806 2.78%
34 South Carolina 2,256,719 37,199 1.65%
48 South Dakota 417,180 4,337 1.04%
51 Tennessee 3,161,852 28,808 0.91%
35 Texas 11,278,559 184,331 1.63%
24 Utah 1,189,776 23,367 1.96%
12 Vermont 344,889 8,391 2.43%
8 Virginia 4,016,297 132,236 3.29%
30 Washington 3,371,086 59,071 1.75%
27 Michigan 5,022,234 93,981 1.87%
9 Minnesota 2,734,017 78,514 2.87%
50 Mississippi 1,440,588 14,313 0.99%
31 Missouri 3,010,549 52,276 1.74%
47 West Virginia 926,428 9,696 1.05%
21 Wisconsin 2,957,858 63,512 2.15%
40 Wyoming 284,489 4,058 1.43%
Other Areasa 1,764,892 77,787 4.41%
_____________________________________________________________________
Source: Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service,
available at
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=134951,00.html
visited November 8, 2010.
FOOTNOTE TO TABLE 1
a Includes, for example, returns filed from Army Post
Office and Fleet Post Office addresses by members of the armed forces
stationed overseas; returns filed by other U.S. citizens abroad; and
returns filed by residents of Puerto Rico with income from sources
outside Puerto Rico or with income earned as U.S. government
employees.
Table 2. Number of Alternative Minimum Taxpayers
by State, Tax Year 2008
(returns in thousands)
_____________________________________________________________________
AMT
Returns
Number of as % of
Rank State Returns AMT Returns Total
_____________________________________________________________________
U.S.A. 143,490,468 3,952,315 2.75%
47 Alabama 2,076,195 25,106 1.21%
50 Alaska 359,709 3,659 1.02%
38 Arizona 2,714,182 43,305 1.60%
40 Arkansas 1,223,637 17,884 1.46%
7 California 16,478,215 705,257 4.28%
14 Colorado 2,340,854 54,738 2.34%
2 Connecticut 1,742,470 95,523 5.48%
19 Delaware 425,490 9,255 2.18%
3 District of Columbia 302,531 16,208 5.36%
34 Florida 8,875,483 146,076 1.65%
18 Georgia 4,255,054 96,181 2.26%
28 Hawaii 656,452 11,923 1.82%
33 Idaho 666,723 10,999 1.65%
11 Illinois 6,112,426 161,435 2.64%
42 Indiana 3,019,320 42,741 1.42%
32 Iowa 1,415,088 24,134 1.71%
20 Kansas 1,328,944 28,784 2.17%
35 Kentucky 1,869,439 30,666 1.64%
29 Louisiana 1,983,957 35,682 1.80%
23 Maine 633,674 12,889 2.03%
5 Maryland 2,776,026 127,022 4.58%
6 Massachusetts 3,197,925 142,043 4.44%
30 Montana 477,153 8,347 1.75%
24 Nebraska 857,622 16,785 1.96%
44 Nevada 1,272,433 16,429 1.29%
21 New Hampshire 668,971 14,269 2.13%
1 New Jersey 4,304,848 267,676 6.22%
45 New Mexico 923,431 11,771 1.27%
4 New York 9,203,531 480,434 5.22%
16 North Carolina 4,180,091 95,670 2.29%
41 North Dakota 322,761 4,717 1.46%
17 Ohio 5,562,764 126,749 2.28%
39 Oklahoma 1,605,411 25,140 1.57%
12 Oregon 1,753,860 44,282 2.52%
13 Pennsylvania 6,130,055 149,759 2.44%
10 Rhode Island 510,709 14,164 2.77%
37 South Carolina 2,047,201 32,841 1.60%
49 South Dakota 389,575 4,065 1.04%
51 Tennessee 2,842,898 26,873 0.95%
27 Texas 10,792,258 199,096 1.84%
31 Utah 1,145,303 19,670 1.72%
15 Vermont 320,162 7,384 2.31%
8 Virginia 3,727,792 127,222 3.41%
36 Washington 3,185,705 52,078 1.63%
25 Michigan 4,626,365 88,194 1.91%
9 Minnesota 2,569,679 74,976 2.92%
48 Mississippi 1,254,942 14,391 1.15%
26 Missouri 2,739,220 51,028 1.86%
46 West Virginia 785,966 9,740 1.24%
22 Wisconsin 2,767,859 58,311 2.11%
43 Wyoming 274,041 3,701 1.35%
Other Areasa 1,794,068 65,043 3.63%
_____________________________________________________________________
Source: Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service,
available at
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=134951,00.html
visited November 8, 2010.
FOOTNOTE TO TABLE 2
a Includes, for example, returns filed from Army Post
Office and Fleet Post Office addresses by members of the armed forces
stationed overseas; returns filed by other U.S. citizens abroad; and
returns filed by residents of Puerto Rico with income from sources
outside Puerto Rico or with income earned as U.S. government
employees.
Table 3. Estimated Number of Alternative Minimum Taxpayers
by State, Tax Year 2012
_____________________________________________________________________
Potential
AMT Returns
State AMT Returns in 2008 in 2012 (CRS)
_____________________________________________________________________
U.S.A. 3,952,315 34,400,000
Alabama 25,106 218,517
Alaska 3,659 31,847
Arizona 43,305 376,916
Arkansas 17,884 155,658
California 705,257 6,138,387
Colorado 54,738 476,426
Connecticut 95,523 831,409
Delaware 9,255 80,553
District of Columbia 16,208 141,071
Florida 146,076 1,271,410
Georgia 96,181 837,136
Hawaii 11,923 103,775
Idaho 10,999 95,733
Illinois 161,435 1,405,091
Indiana 42,741 372,007
Iowa 24,134 210,057
Kansas 28,784 250,529
Kentucky 30,666 266,909
Louisiana 35,682 310,568
Maine 12,889 112,183
Maryland 127,022 1,105,569
Massachusetts 142,043 1,236,308
Michigan 88,194 767,619
Montana 8,347 72,650
Nebraska 16,785 146,093
Nevada 16,429 142,994
New Hampshire 14,269 124,194
New Jersey 267,676 2,329,788
New Mexico 11,771 102,452
New York 480,434 4,181,582
North Carolina 95,670 832,689
North Dakota 4,717 41,056
Ohio 126,749 1,103,193
Oklahoma 25,140 218,813
Oregon 44,282 385,420
Pennsylvania 149,759 1,303,466
Rhode Island 14,164 123,280
South Carolina 32,841 285,840
South Dakota 4,065 35,381
Tennessee 26,873 233,896
Texas 199,096 1,732,884
Utah 19,670 171,203
Vermont 7,384 64,269
Virginia 127,222 1,107,310
Washington 52,078 453,274
West Virginia 9,740 84,775
Minnesota 74,976 652,573
Mississippi 14,391 125,256
Missouri 51,028 444,135
Wisconsin 58,311 507,525
Wyoming 3,701 32,213
Other Areasa 65,043 566,119
_____________________________________________________________________
Source: CRS estimates based on Department of the Treasury,
Internal Revenue Service data, available at
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=134951,00.html
visited April 18, 2011.
FOOTNOTE TO TABLE 3
a Includes, for example, returns filed from Army Post
Office and Fleet Post Office addresses by members of the armed forces
stationed overseas; returns filed by other U.S. citizens abroad; and
returns filed by residents of Puerto Rico with income from sources
outside Puerto Rico or with income earned as U.S. government
employees.
Author Contact Information
Steven Maguire
Specialist in Public Finance
smaguire@crs.loc.gov, 7-7841
1 See CRS Report RL30149, The Alternative Minimum Tax for Individuals, by Steven Maguire.
2 The estimate was made before the tax cuts were extended through 2012. Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Microsimulation Model (version 0509-06), "T10-0245 -- Number of AMT Taxpayers with and without AMT Patch, 2010- 2012," November 24, 2010. Data available at http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=2843.
3 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Taxation, "Present Law and Background Data related to the Federal Tax System in Effect for 2010 and 2011," JCX-19-10, March 22, 2010, p. 43.
4 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Taxation, "Present Law and Background Relating to the Alternative Minimum Tax," JCX-38-07, June 25, 2007, p. 18.
5 For more on the deductibility of state and local taxes, see CRS Report RL32781, Federal Deductibility of State and Local Taxes, by Steven Maguire.
6 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Taxation, "Present Law and Background Data Related to the Federal Tax System in Effect for 2010 and 2011," JCX-19-10, March 22, 2010.
7 U.S. Treasury, General Explanation of the Administration's 2012 Budget Proposal, February 2011, p. 145.
END OF FOOTNOTES
- AuthorsMaguire, Steven
- Institutional AuthorsCongressional Research Service
- Code Sections
- Subject Area/Tax Topics
- Jurisdictions
- LanguageEnglish
- Tax Analysts Document NumberDoc 2011-8613
- Tax Analysts Electronic Citation2011 TNT 78-21