I need help! What did I do wrong????

[Andy_B]

Let me lay it out as best I can here

1) We have been using TurboTax for about 5 years now with no issues

2) This year we used it and we triggered $879 in AMT, which makes no sense to us. We have done nothing different than we have done in years past.

All income comes from the following

Salary - covered by W2's
Interest/Dividends/Cap Gains Dist - Covered by 1099's

We did not sell any stock
We did not exercise any options
We don't even own the type of options (ISO) that AMT likes to eat


Did any tax law change this year that could have caused me to get hit by AMT?

What other items besides income and options can AMT be triggered off of?

Very confused. Thanks for any help you can give. I am going to have the wifey redo the taxes from step 1 just to see if I screwed something up when inputting the data.

Andy

[Footer Phooter]

Let me lay it out as best I can here


What other items besides income and options can AMT be triggered off of?



State and Local Taxes are a big driver. If you're from Mass., you probably had a ton of these.

[Andy_B]

State and Local Taxes are a big driver. If you're from Mass., you probably had a ton of these.

I do have state taxes, but they are not different from years past.

One thing I did not mention was that we made less money this year when compared to last. Does the fact that I am paying less taxes than the year before cause anything funky to happen?

Andy

[erikl2]

AMT is forecasted to effect more and more people every year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36988-2004Mar6.html

[Andy_B]

AMT is forecasted to effect more and more people every year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36988-2004Mar6.html

ok I may not be doing anything wrong. I sound just like some of the examples in this article.

Thank you for the information.

Andy

[SgtSchultz]

Thanks for posting that article.

[Andy_B]

I find it strange that with all of the playing around with the tax code over the years that no one has found it strange that someone making $200K in 1966 should not be considered the same as someone making $200k nearly 40 years later.

Think about it.

With a 3% growth, 200K in 1966 would be the same as making $633k today
With a 4% growth, 200K in 1966 would be the same as making $923k today

Andy

[erikl2]

I find it strange that with all of the playing around with the tax code over the years that no one has found it strange that someone making $200K in 1966 should not be considered the same as someone making $200k nearly 40 years later.

Andy

This type of non-thinking can be found all-throughout the tax code. The area that effects the most people is the lack of cost-of-living adjustment to IRA and 401k contribution limits. It is only in the last couple of years that these amounts have been adjusted (and then not significantly enough to make up for the lack of adjustment in the past).