I apologize if my assumption was incorrect.

I went back and reread your original post

The reason behind my assumption was because I read were you stated that you were NOT effected by AMT. Since you were not affected by AMT the only other way you shouldn't receive the full credit is if your tax liability had been reduced to zero. Since you had also mentioned the impacts of having a zero tax liability along with your mortgage interest deduction I drew the conclusion that you were being impacted in this manner.

Reading your other follow-up post it looks like the issue ended up being with the date you used for the purchase of this vehicle, and not related to either the AMT or overall tax liability. I am glad it worked out for you.

 

It seems as if I was getting "piled on" for no reason fellas. I was just trying to not get everyone's false hopes up, and I think I succeeded, since there are several people who have reported that they did not qualify for the credit or the full credit.

If this doesn't mean what it says, then mea culpa:

"The new tax break is a nonrefundable credit. This means the credit can reduce your regular income tax liability to zero, but it won’t produce a tax refund."

Seems pretty clear to me. That's all I was saying.

Where I was incorrect was translating "won't produce a tax refund" to mean "cannot increase your tax refund" because it apparently can do just that for SOME people in certain tax brackets.

It just doesn't increase your refund by adding it to the end result, because it instead reduces you liability, meaning you don't OWE as much. It's not a "hey, pop $2600 on the end of of your refund NO MATTER WHAT" which is kind of what I was saying also.

 

There was very good reason for piling on you! You kept insisting on disseminating bad information, in spite of the repeated attempts to set you straight by numerous different posters, with numerous different approaches to explaining this to you. You refused, until now, to understand what was what.
It is correct, but not particularly clear. You were confusing issues of tax liability with issues of tax withholding and resultant refunds, assuming there was a connection between tax refunds and the word "nonrefundable", which there is not.

Now that you seem to get it...thank you for your very good intentions!

-- Alan

 

I'm a single childless renter. Tough break fellas!

 

I just spent some time eailing all of my congress people as well as the president about the so called hybrid tax credit. What a joke! I believe we were all duped into thinking we would get this credit. I have submitted some URL's that clearly state nothing about AMT and the possible reduction of the credit. I have no idea if my efforts are in vein, however I feel our wisely elected need to know of this injustice. The first URL will help you find your congressmen email if you care to voice your concerns.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...160325,00.html

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...153172,00.html

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...164300,00.html

http://www.energy.gov/taxbreaks.htm

http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/pdfs/tax_credits.pdf


http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/21/Auto...ion=2006010310

 

Woohoo I guess we are poor enough to get the full credit...I have another $1000 of room until we hit the limit. I guess I am glad my wife got her job when she did...she made 2x in the 2nd half of the year and if she had this job the whole year we wouldn't have gotten the full credit.

 

The real joke is our stupid tax system. I say scrap it all, and we ALL pay 10% tax after the first $X of income (and maybe a few bucks less per kid). No exceptions.

You make a ton of money and have to pay a lot of tax, too bad. You have a lower income, you pay a little. It is all fair, and predictable.

We could eliminate most of the IRS, and all file by filling out the back of a post card.

Having said all that, I am looking forward to my $1300 credit. :-)

 

I agree, but 10% wouldn't come close unfortunately. I personally believe getting taxed on what you spend makes more sense than being taxed on what you're paid. A consumption tax would also catch everyone in the US that isn't currently paying income tax as well as people with illegal streams of revenue that are not currently taxed.

ie) The drug dealer pays federal tax every time he buys a new shirt.

PS. Check my posts for the bill that abolishes the IRS

 

I got back only $1539, I hope the remaining $1000+ can be used next year....

 

Hmmm, wouldn't that be nice? Unfortunately, I don't think this is the way these types of tax credits work (at least not for this particular one).

Does anyone believe otherwise?

BTW, like many of you out there on this thread, I 'lost' ~$1.4K of the $2.6K I was hoping for back in mid-'06 (by not having paid attention to the AMT/TMT potentials back then). Ouch. Live & learn, but we move on...