You mean if you are married and own a house you get less credit? How is that possible? Nowhere did they argue that your tax credit was dependant of your marital status or owned a home.

How can this be?

 

That's not fact. I'm married with a meager income and mortgage and low interest rate and no kids, I could have bought 3 hybrids and not hit the AMT.

Mickster is generalizing assuming that everyone that is married and owns a house has enough deductions to hit the AMT. There is nothing in any code that ties the hybrid credit to either marriage or home ownership.

 

Actually, it is the loss of most deductions which are the "hit" with AMT.

Congress decided long ago to go after the effect (rich paying little-to-no taxes) rather than the cause (subtle tax loopholes being exploited by the rich). That twisted logic is why AMT is such a bad kludge today. With AMT, tax deductions which most don't consider loopholes, like primary home mortgages, kids, marriage, etc, have become major factors in its calculation.

So, with the hybrid credit tax law with its ties with AMT, and AMT with its ties to marriage and home ownership, there is indeed an indirect link.

 

I agree most of with what you said. It was a quicky fix to an underlying problem, most of which has been corrected by eliminating loopholes long after the AMT was created.

Yes you can't deduct things from the AMT that you can with the standard filing. But someone without kids and a meager mortgage doesn't have enough deductions and will pay more tax that the AMT already.

If you don't have deductions it doesn't matter that you can't deduct from your AMT.

I'm simply trying to show how marriage and a mortgage don't necessarily trigger the AMT.