User talk:Oldtaxguy/AMT

Alternative Minimum Tax draft & discussion page: help requested!

Outline for basics section & section on other adjustments
(posted to article in 28 August 2010)

Draft posted
I have finally posted a draft of AMT Basics posted on the user page of this talk page. Mattnad, please comment. Other comments welcome. Oldtaxguy (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

AMT Details section
I have posted a draft section on AMT details on the user page. Please leave comments here and do edits there. Thanks. Let's try to post to the article by end-September. Oldtaxguy (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversies sections
AMT Controversies sections

I propose to make substantial modifications to certain sections of this article, as indicated below. Comments here are invited. I will not propose specific changes for a month to allow comment time. I will post text of suggested replacement language at user:Oldtaxguy/AMT. Comments are also welcome at usertalk:Oldtaxguy/AMT.

The sections on controversies read like discussion formus for whether or not AMT should be changed. This violates Wikipedia not a soapbox policy.

To eliminate this problem, I propose consolidating and condensing the following sections:
 * that part of History dealing with current controversies,
 * Criticisms and controversies,
 * Arguments against repealing the AMT, and
 * AMT reform, to the extent it deals with proposals rather than actual changes.

Also, much of the material in these sections is duplicated.

Much of the section Taxpayer incomes appears to constitute original research or mere statements of opinion. I propose to delete such parts.

I also propose to eliminate all the weasel words (e.g., "slow motion repeal") and text relying on them.

The section "Avoiding AMT" not only is original research, it gives specific tax advice. Since Wikipedia does not contain the Circular 230 disclaimer on such advice, giving such advice may result in sanctions or lawsuits against Wikipedia Foundation. Barring substantial, reasonable objections, I will delete this section.

Finally, I believe the article, including the box, should be revised to report unsupported opinions as just that. Under Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, generally reliable newspapers are not necessarily reliable sources when they express opinions. "When using news sources, care should be taken to distinguish opinion columns from news reporting." Statements such as "A law for untaxed rich investors was refocused on families who own their homes in high tax states" are clearly just opinions. By contrast, the statement " The IRS had to reprogram its forms to accommodate the law change" is reporting of facts. (Both statements are from The New York Times.) Material citing opinion pieces must be referred to as an opinion, not reported as fact.