Angelo Campanella wrote:
- quote -

As "official" as that cockamamie form is, it is convoluted beyond
belief. In reality, it subjects the entire tax return to a series of
tests, all outside the basic 6251 form. After all those tests, it
selects a delimiter (via convoluted logic) as the chosen AMT determinant.

I followed that trail to the bitter end, and I find my original return
to be according to THEIR liking.

Job security for the IRS and Coongressmen, I say.

Angelo Campanella

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Feb 7, 5:32*pm, Angelo Campanella <a.campane...[at]att.net> wrote:
- quote -

Just one suggestion - make sure you did not leave "overrides" anywhere
on TT. I don't have the internal math to TT but it apparently assumes
the worst case for any override number. TT wants you to anter those
numbers into the supporting schedules, requiring the user to conform.
(Why, I do not know.) As far as plugging your numbers into TT to
duplicate your reported errors, well .... Try contacting TT with your
question, if the above doesn't handle it.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In my investigation of my 2006 return's calculation of my AMT by
Turbotax 2006, two spurious addendas to AMT income appear; 6251 line 6,
a minus 4417 (via form 1040A itemized) and a "post 1986 depreciation
(AMT difference)" of another minus 2747.

But these were added as plus amounts, increasing the amount of AMT
income. The 6251 line 28 sum shown by turbotax shows an incorrect sum;
it mathces neither the implied sum (minuses obeyed), nor the gross sum,
and is more than the gross minus's doubled.

What is going on?

Am I due a refund?

Angelo Campanella

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >