The Alternative Minimum Tax was created in 1969 and last updated for inflation in 1993. That limit was $100,000 for individuals. Adjusted for inflation this would be $144,000 in 2007 and would exclude many middle class taxpayers.
Neglected taxes passed by prior Congresses should be ruled unconstitutional. While we have no constitutional right of taxation with representation, only the Congress was given the authority to tax our incomes per the 16th Amendment. The current 110th Congress has never approved this $100,000 threshold. Since this limit was set by a prior Congress, as opposed to the Congress. the AMT should be reviewed and rejected by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
AMENDMENT XVI
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
The case for the unconstitutionality of the AMT hangs on the meaning of the word "the." I presume the 16th amendment to mean "the current Congress of the United States," not "a Congress of another country," nor "a Congress of another generation."
Neglected legislation which becomes a hazard to citizens must be removed by the Judicial branch, just as physical hazards that are abandoned are removed by the state.
Congress has had many opportunities to update the AMT limits, or tie them to the Consumer Price Index to maintain the intended target of the law. It is noteworthy that the original law in 1969 was passed by that Congress to target only 122 of the richest Americans. The Congress has abandoned the AMT. It should be removed. When the original AMT law was passed you could redeem one dollar for silver coins, and the dollar was pegged to gold until 1975.
Unfortunately laws written without adjustments for inflation create a burden on citizens to challenge the law and the Judicial Branch to rule when these laws become out-of-date. Since the rate of inflation is not predictable, it simply is not reasonable to think that Congress intended a growing percentage of taxpayers to fall under the AMT.
I'd prefer three functioning branches of government, but failing that checks and balances seems the only recourse.
Probably I should clarify that I think that regardless of the outcome of a challenge of the AMT, shining some sunlight on the issue by filing a case might spur Congress into action of their own.