I spent a LOT of time memorizing every add back with the AMT, and the only questions I got were more basic. I agree with the above. That said…knowing that area so well insured I'd get those types of questions right.
I don't think the issue with the AMT is that it's hard to calculate…the problem is that it's not affecting the people it was designed to affect.
Example…I have a woman…working class…she sold a home in a gentrifying area and she's going to live out on the retirement. She got absolutely clobbered by the AMT in the one year sale…and she had to sell stock just to pay tax, which of course generated more tax. There should be some sort of smoothing out period for cases like this. People with legal fees on large settlements get decimated by the AMT. That's not who this was designed for. If there's ANY deduction that shouldn't survive the AMT, it's charitable donations…and of course that goes through clean.
It hasn't been adjusted for inflation in AGES.
The people with “real” money don't get hit because it's a lower rate…it's basically a special screw you tax for white collar, successful professionals…and I submit they aren't then ones who should be punched by a “special” tax.
Ultimately, I think the better approach are bracket changes. I also prefer inheritance taxes. Finally…pass whatever rules you want, but so long as the IRS is (intentionally) understaffed, people are going to screw around and take more risk with their returns. Personally, I felt the tax reform got it completely wrong in terms of who got breaks and who didn't…and how far those breaks went in a full employment economy.
AUD - 96
BEC - 84
FAR - 89
REG - 86
Aaron and always remember, YMMV
I profit from your CPE frustration. You're welcome.
.