|
#1
| |||
| |||
| frank1492 <frank1492[at]verizon.net> wrote: snip - quote - > I realize that computation of AMT is complex and you don't
As a general rule, if you become subject to the AMT, there> have exact figures, but I'm just looking for a rule of thumb > as well as perhaps some consolation that I haven't paid much > more than I needed to. is little you can do to reduce the TOTAL tax bill. If you limit deductions, you will have a higher regular tax and a lower AMT. However, it is usually a dollar for dollar exchange. For each dollar you increase preference items, you increace the AMT by an equal amount. That's exactly what the AMT was intended to do: to insure that taxpayers either pay a certain amount of regular tax or become subject to the AMT. Lanny K. Williams, CPA Nawarat, Williams & Co., Ltd. Income Tax Services for Expatriate Americans << ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- > |
| | |||
| |||
| frank1492 <frank1...[at]verizon.net> wrote: - quote - > This issue has been raised in other threads, but I'm not
<<SNIP> > I realize that computation of AMT is complex and you don't- quote - > have exact figures, but I'm just looking for a rule of thumb
Here's a rule of thumb for those impacted by AMT. Nothing> as well as perhaps some consolation that I haven't paid much > more than I needed to. you can do will lower your total tax liability. If you eliminate enough deductions so that AMT is zero, your regular tax will have increased to the point that it equals or exceeds what your liability would have been with that AMT impact. << ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- > |
|
#-1
| |||
| |||
| This issue has been raised in other threads, but I'm not sure I have ever seen exact answers to the following questions. For the past two years my income has been unusually large, due to the sale of shorefront property in a state other than my home state. Obviously this had tax ramifications in both states. Being somewhat naive, I went ahead and listed the large taxes as deductions. My AMT was several thousand dollars in each year. (None next year I presume as my income and property taxes return to "normal" levels.) I have already filed my tax return for this year, and obviously last as well. I focus first on whether or not the law says (or implies) that once you have chosen to itemize, you then have an obligation to itemize fully. So my first question is: Do you? (Although I gather not.) If possible, for example, to understate state taxes, my next question is under what circumstances would benefit to the AMT accrue? I currently have a refund of $301. As an extreme test, using TurboTax, I reduced my state taxes to zero to see what would happen. The result was an amount due of over $1300. (My AMT of course went to 0.) Obviously there was no benefit to completely omit my state taxes as deductions, which again I would have guessed. If I looked at various levels of understatement, however, would there have been some level at which there would have been benefit to such understatement? If understatement is allowable, would there have been great benefit to finding that "critical level" that would have minimized my total tax? Or would that benefit have been relatively small? I realize that computation of AMT is complex and you don't have exact figures, but I'm just looking for a rule of thumb as well as perhaps some consolation that I haven't paid much more than I needed to. Thanks very much for your help! Frank << ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== > |
| Tags |
| amt, claiming, deductions, fewer, mimimizing |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | Last Post | |
| Chapter 179 Deductions -large SUV/Truck deductions for business owners MAX: Does any one have any information on this? Is it an Audit alert? Thanks. << -------------------------------------------------><< The Charter... | Taxes | 17 | 06-17-2004 03:53 AM | |
| Claiming exemption JSmith9543: My ex and I are divorced. He currently is allowed to claim our daughter per divorce decree, and I claim our son. Decree states ex may claim 'minor... | Taxes | 1 | 04-23-2004 04:37 AM | |
| Claiming dependent Nan Eklund: Client has custody of daughter, age 20, full time student. Divorce several years ago and court gave dependency deduction to father. Father stopped... | Taxes | 2 | 02-12-2004 08:29 AM | |
| claiming dependants Kelly and Robert: Does anyone have a link or information regarding the claiming of children.. If a child is born after June 1, can they still be claimed as a... | Taxes | 14 | 12-28-2003 11:37 PM | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |