The Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax 

Aggregate Historical Trends 

by 

Curtis P. Carlson 

U.S. Department of the Treasury 

OTA Paper 93 June 2005 

OTA Papers is an occasional series of reports on the research, models, and data sets developed to 

inform and improve Treasury’s tax policy analysis. The papers are works in progress and subject 

to revision. Views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily 

represent official Treasury positions or policy. OTA Papers are distributed in order to document 

OTA analytic methods and data and invite discussion and suggestions for revision and 

improvement. Comments are welcome and should be directed to the authors. 

Office of Tax Analysis 

Department of the Treasury 

Washington, DC 20220 

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of 

the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The author wishes to thank Robert Carroll, Geraldine 

Gerardi and Andrew Lyon for their comments and suggestions. Comments are welcome: Curtis 

Carlson, Office of Tax Analysis, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave., 

NW, Washington D.C. 20220. Curtis.Carlson@do.treas.gov 
The Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax 

Aggregate Historical Trends 

by 

Curtis P. Carlson 

U.S. Department of the Treasury 

OTA Paper 93 June 2005 

OTA Papers is an occasional series of reports on the research, models, and data sets developed to 

inform and improve Treasury’s tax policy analysis. The papers are works in progress and subject 

to revision. Views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily 

represent official Treasury positions or policy. OTA Papers are distributed in order to document 

OTA analytic methods and data and invite discussion and suggestions for revision and 

improvement. Comments are welcome and should be directed to the authors. 

Office of Tax Analysis 

Department of the Treasury 

Washington, DC 20220 

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of 

the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The author wishes to thank Robert Carroll, Geraldine 

Gerardi and Andrew Lyon for their comments and suggestions. Comments are welcome: Curtis 

Carlson, Office of Tax Analysis, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave., 

NW, Washington D.C. 20220. Curtis.Carlson@do.treas.gov 
1. Introduction 

Corporations are required to calculate their tax liability under two sets of rules – they 

compute their regular tax liability and their tentative alternative minimum tax (AMT) liability 

and pay whichever is greater. If the tentative AMT is more than the regular tax, the difference 

between them is AMT. The purpose of the AMT is to prevent companies from eliminating their 

tax liability from over use of certain corporate tax preferences. For example, the AMT rules 

prevent companies from using most business tax credits, such as the research and 

experimentation credit, the work opportunity credit and the welfare-to-work credit, to offset 

AMT or to reduce regular tax below tentative minimum tax. The AMT also serves to “smooth” a 

firm’s corporate tax liability over time because the AMT may be credited against future regular 

tax liability. Nevertheless, credits from prior AMT many not be used to reduce regular tax 

liability below the tentative minimum AMT. 

The original purpose of the AMT was to ensure that no taxpayer with substantial 

economic income could avoid significant tax liability by using exclusions, deductions and credits 

(JCT 1987). The AMT, however, creates economic inefficiencies, increases tax complexity and 

burden and is unlikely to be the best policy for achieving equity across taxpayers.1 In addition, 

corporate tax return data show that the tax revenue collected from the AMT has declined 

dramatically in the last decade. 

Total AMT payments reached an all time low of $1.8 billion in 2001 and slightly 

rebounded in 2002 to $2.5 billion. The number of firms affected by the AMT also reached new 

lows in the last few years. In 2001 and 2002 firms affected by the AMT accounted for 18.96 and 

1

 See Lyon (1997) for a detailed economic analysis of the corporate AMT. 

1 
25.08 percent of all corporate assets respectively.2 The figures are significantly lower than those 

seen in the early 1990s. The reduced effect of the AMT is likely the result of structural changes 

made to the AMT in the late 1990s and the Job Creation and Workers Assistance Act of 2002 

(JCWAA) which temporarily reduced the effect of the AMT depreciation adjustment. 

2. Brief History of the AMT 

Since the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 the overall structure of the AMT has 

remained basically the same, although several important modifications to the AMT rules have 

been made. The most significant changes affected how depreciable assets are recovered under 

the AMT versus the regular tax, although the changes under the 2002 Jobs Creation and Workers 

Assistance Act were temporary. Recovery periods were generally shortened for AMT purposes, 

which has the effect of bringing the treatment of depreciable assets under the AMT somewhat 

more in line to the treatment under the regular tax, thereby lowering AMT liability, by reducing 

the difference between regular taxable income and tentative AMT income. 

The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 repealed one of the AMT’s two depreciation 

adjustments, the ACE depreciation adjustment, for property placed in service after 1993. The 

Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 modified the remaining depreciation adjustments and repealed the 

AMT for small corporations. For property placed in service after December 31, 1998, the AMT 

recovery period for computing the depreciation adjustment was made the same as for regular tax 

purposes, although, the AMT recovery method was not conformed. Property eligible for the 

200-percent declining balance method under the regular tax must continue to be recovered using 

2

 For similar analysis for earlier time periods see Lyon (1997) and Carlson (2001). For additional studies on 

corporate AMT see Gerardi, Milner and Silverstein (1993) and GAO (1995). 

2 
the slower 150-percent declining balance method under the AMT.3 Property placed in service on 

or before December 31, 1998 is generally recovered over longer periods under the AMT than for 

regular tax purposes in addition to being subject to the slower recovery method. For taxable 

years beginning after December 31, 1997, a corporation with average gross receipts of less than 

$7.5 million for the prior three taxable years is exempt from the AMT. The $7.5 million 

threshold is reduced to $5 million for the corporation’s first three-taxable year period. 

The Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 (JCWAA) included 30 percent 

bonus depreciation, which allows a business to immediately write-off 30 percent of the original 

"adjusted (depreciable) basis" of most new investment in equipment, usually the fully installed 

cost of qualified property.4 Property must be acquired after September 10, 2001, and before 

September 11, 2004. The bonus depreciation is allowed for both the regular tax and the AMT. In 

addition, businesses are entitled to "normal" first-year MACRS depreciation. If bonus 

depreciation is claimed, no AMT adjustment is required on the regular MACRS deductions. 

In May 2003, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (JGTRRA) increased 

bonus depreciation to 50 percent. Under the JGTRRA, 50 percent “bonus” depreciation may be 

claimed for property acquired after May 5, 2003, and before January 1, 2005, and placed in 

service generally before January 1, 2005.5 As with the JCWAA, bonus depreciation is allowed 

for both the regular tax and the AMT. 

3

 Property recovered under the 150 percent declining balance method or the straight-line method for regular tax 

purposes is recovered using the same method under the AMT. 4

 Property eligible for this treatment includes business equipment, computer hardware and most software, but not 

real estate or buildings. 5 Property does not qualify for the 50 percent “bonus” depreciation if a binding written sales contract was in effect 

before May 6, 2003 (although the 30 percent “bonus” would be applicable). Property eligible for the 50 percent 

“bonus” depreciation is the same as for the 30 percent “bonus” under the JCWAA. 

3 
3. Historical Trends in the Corporate AMT: 1987-2002 

Number of Firms Affected by the AMT 

Even though a firm may not have AMT liability, it can still be affected by the AMT by 

having its use of tax credits limited by the tentative minimum tax. Generally, a corporation 

cannot use its tax credits to reduce its net regular tax below its tentative minimum tax. A firm 

whose use of tax credits is limited in this manner does not pay AMT, but its regular tax payment 

is larger than it otherwise would be. The number of corporations affected by the AMT, either 

through limits on the use of tax credits or direct AMT payments, has declined over the past 

decade, reaching lows of 12,385 in 2001 and 13,172 in 2002 (Table 1).

6 This is 28 percent and 

30 percent respectively of the number of corporations affected by AMT in 1990 when the 

number of firms affected by AMT reached its height and 56 percent and 59 percent respectively 

of the number of corporations affected by AMT in 2000.7 Of the firms affected by AMT in 

2001, 57 percent (7,095) had AMT, while the remaining 43 percent (5,289) were constrained in 

their use of credits by the tentative minimum tax. In 2002, 52 percent (7,060) made positive 

AMT payments while the remaining 46 percent (6,111) were constrained in their use of credits 

by the tentative minimum tax. From 1993 through 2002 at least 60 percent of firms had losses 

and paid no tax. In 2002, the percent of firms with losses reached a high of 68 percent. 

Table 2 shows the tax status of corporations from 1993 through 2002 weighted by total 

assets. In 2001, 19 percent of assets were held by firms paying higher taxes due to the AMT, a 

30 percent drop from the previous year’s 28 percent. This was the lowest total percentage of 

corporate assets affected by the AMT in the 1993-2001 period. In 2002, 25 percent of assets 

were held by firms affected by the AMT. 

6

 See Lyon (1997) for analysis of earlier years. 7

 The number of corporations affected by AMT in 1990 is based on Lyon (1997). 

4 
Total AMT Liabilities and Credits 

In addition to the fall in the number of firms affected by the AMT, corporate AMT 

liabilities have also declined over the last several years. Corporate AMT payments peaked in 

1990 at $8.1 billion, accounting for 8.4 percent of total corporate taxes (Table 3). By 2001, 

corporate AMT payments had shrunk to only $1.8 billion, accounting for 1.1 percent of total 

corporate taxes. AMT paid in 2001 is only about 20 percent of the AMT paid in 1990, when the 

AMT was at its peak and less than half of the corporate AMT paid in 2000. In 2002, AMT 

payments increased slightly to $2.5 billion. 

AMT paid by a corporation in one year is available as a credit against its regular tax 

liability in future years. Table 4 shows that net minimum taxes (AMT payments minus AMT 

credits) exceeded AMT payments from 1995 to 2001. In 2002 net minimum taxes were slightly 

positive ($0.5 billion) and the total number of unused AMT credits were just over $20 billion.8 

Since 1987, firms with assets over $1 billion have paid most of the corporate AMT 

(Table 5). These very large corporations accounted for between 63.9 percent and 84.4 percent of 

all AMT payments from 1987 through 2002. Very large corporations paid their highest share of 

AMT in 1991 (71.6 percent) and 2002 (84.4 percent).9 

AMT Status by Firm Size and Industry Classification 

Table 6 shows the tax status of corporations by asset size in 2002. The percentage of 

firms affected by the AMT increases significantly for firms with assets exceeding $10 million. 

Only 0.26 percent of firms with an asset size of less than $1 million were affected by the AMT. 

8

 The AMT credit figure does not include unallowed nonconventional source fuel credits and unallowed qualified 

electric vehicle credits. Total credits available in 2002 were $26.2 billion including these credits. 9

 For comparison, firms with assets over $1 billion in 2002 paid 74 percent of total corporate taxes. 

5 
For firms larger than $10 million, the percentage of firms affected by the AMT ranges from 7 

percent to 16 percent. 

Table 7 shows the percentage of firms in loss status for regular tax purposes that paid 

AMT in 2002. The percentage of firms paying AMT increases from 0.10 percent for the smallest 

firms to 6.4 percent for the largest firms. Although approximately 0.2 percent of loss firms pay 

AMT, about 47 percent of firms with positive AMT payments were in a loss position for regular 

tax purposes in 2002. 

Table 8 shows the percentage of firms in each major industry by their tax status in 2002. 

The largest percentage of firms affected by the AMT is in mining (2.3 percent), transportation 

and warehousing (1.2 percent) and manufacturing (1.3 percent). The majority of firms in each 

industry are in loss status. Table 9 shows the percentage of corporate assets in each industry by 

their tax status for 2002. More than 40 percent of the manufacturing industry’s assets are held by 

firms affected by the AMT. Tables 10 and 11 show the percentage of corporate assets in the 

manufacturing and mining industry from 1993-2002.10 In the manufacturing industry, between 

58 and 76 percent of the industry’s assets were in loss status or affected by the AMT. During 

this time, 60 percent or more of the mining industry’s assets were in loss status or affected by the 

AMT. Both the manufacturing and mining industries had a large decrease in the percent of 

assets affected by AMT in 2001 but they also had a large increase in the percent of assets in 

corporations in a loss state. In 2002, the percent of assets affected by the AMT in the 

manufacturing industry increased back to historic levels. 

10 For years 1993-1997 industry classifications are based on SIC codes. For 1998-2001 industry classifications are 

based on NAICS codes. 

6
Major AMT Adjustments and Preferences 

Adjustments and preferences account for the most significant differences between 

alternative minimum taxable income and regular taxable income. In 2002, the most important 

upward adjustments for computing alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI) were the 

adjusted current earnings (ACE) adjustment and the Blue Cross, Blue Shield adjustment (Table 

12). The ACE adjustment accounted for a majority of all adjustments and preferences for the 

first time in 2001 and was equal to 68 percent of all adjustment and preferences in 2002.11 Total 

depreciation adjustments dropped by over 83 percent from 2000 to 2002. For comparison, total 

depreciation deductions for regular tax purposes increased by over 2 percent from 2000 to 2002. 

Table 13 shows that over 66 percent of firms paying AMT had a depreciation adjustment in 

2002. The ACE adjustment and other adjustment were the other two most significant 

adjustments. 

4. Conclusion 

The number of corporate taxpayers affected by the AMT and the amount of corporate 

AMT payments made have steadily declined over the last decade. Results from aggregate data 

show that these declines increased significantly in 2001. The “bonus” depreciation rules in 

JCWAA as well as other changes to the AMT rules in the 1990’s have significantly reduced the 

effect of the corporate AMT. The “bonus” depreciation rules are temporary, however, so it is not 

clear that the smaller effect of the AMT seen in 2001 and 2002 will continue into the future. 

Even if the effect of the AMT has lessened in recent years, it still continues to create 

economic inefficiencies by its disparate affect on firms from different industries and firms of 

11 The total of all positive adjustments can exceed 100 percent because other adjustments, notably the basis 

adjustment, can be negative. 

7 
different sizes. A more efficient tax system would treat all firms equally, leaving investment and 

other business decisions to be undertaken based on their economic fundamentals rather than 

based on their tax consequences. 

8
References 

Carlson, Curtis. “Who Pays the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax? Results from Corporate 

Panel Data for 1987-1998”, Proceedings of the Ninety-Forth Annual Conference on 

Taxation, National Tax Association, 2001. 

General Accounting Office, Experience with the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax. 

GAO/GGD-95-88. Washington D.C.: GAO, April 1995. 

Gerardi, Geraldine, Hudson Milner and Gerald Silverstein. “The Effects of Corporate 

Alternative Minimum Tax: Additional Results From Panel Data for 1987-1991,” 

Proceedings of the Eighty-Fifth Annual Conference on Taxation, National Tax 

Association, 1993. 

Joint Committee on Taxation, General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Washington, 

D.C.: JCT, 1987: 432. 

Lyon, Andrew B. Cracking the Code, Making Sense of the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax. 

Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute Press, 1997. 

9
Table 1. Corporations by Tax Status 1993-2002 

Percent 

Alternative 

Minimum 

Tax 

Positive 

AMT 

Payments 

Total 

Number of 

Firms 

Tentative 

Minimum Tax 

Total Loss Regular Tax AMT Year 

1993 1.43 0.66 2.09 60.46 37.45 2,055,982 

1994 1.28 0.60 1.88 60.77 37.35 2,310,703 

1995 1.12 0.60 1.72 60.48 37.81 2,312,382 

1996 1.20 0.56 1.76 59.82 38.42 2,317,885 

1997 1.11 0.60 1.71 60.41 37.87 2,248,064 

1998 0.82 0.53 1.35 60.41 38.25 2,249,969 

1999 0.68 0.37 1.05 60.73 38.25 2,198,739 

2000 0.60 0.42 1.02 62.56 36.42 2,172,705 

2001 0.33 0.25 0.58 64.49 34.93 2,136,756 

2002 0.34 0.29 0.63 68.04 31.33 2,100,074 

Source: Statistics of Income Corporate Tax Return Files, 1993-2002. 

Data excludes S-corporations, regulated investment companies, and real estate investment trusts 

Percents may not equal 100 due to rounding

Table 2. Corporate Assets by Tax Status 1993-2002 

Percent 

Alternative Minimum Tax 

Year 

AMT 

Positive 

Payments Tax 

Tentative Minimum Total AMT Loss Regular Tax 

1993 17.50 18.29 35.79 12.08 52.12 

1994 18.32 15.21 33.53 11.12 55.35 

1995 16.25 15.79 32.04 10.18 57.77 

1996 13.50 14.83 28.33 9.52 62.15 

1997 14.13 14.07 28.20 8.86 62.94 

1998 15.43 11.46 26.89 12.65 60.45 

1999 14.83 19.27 34.10 13.91 52.00 

2000 13.54 13.96 27.50 16.81 55.68 

2001 8.65 10.31 18.96 23.64 57.40 

2002 10.61 14.47 25.08 23.63 51.29 

Source: Statistics of Income Corporate Tax Return Files, 1993-2002. 

Data exclude S-corporations, regulated investment companies, and real estate investment trusts. 

Percents may not equal 100 due to rounding.

10
Table 3. Number of Corporate Returns and Taxes Paid by Corporations with Alternative Minimum Tax

1987-2002a 

Taxes paid by 

Year returns with AMT 

(thousands) 

a percent of 

total returns 

(percent) 

minimum tax 

($ billions) 

AMT 

taxpayers ($ 

billions) 

a percent of total 

taxes paid 

(percent) 

percen

total ta

paid (per

1987 17.4 0.7 2.2 5.8 6.7 1988 25.2 1.1 3.4 6.3 6.6 1989 25.2 1.1 3.5 7.9 8.2 1990 32.5 1.5 8.1 20.7 21.5 1991 30.5 1.5 5.3 13 14.2 1992 28.0 1.3 4.9 12.5 12.3 1993 29.3 1.4 4.9 10.2 8.5 1994 29.5 1.3 4.5 8.2 6.0 1995 25.8 1.1 4.3 8.1 5.2 1996 27.7 1.2 3.8 6.8 4.0 1997 25.0 1.1 3.9 7.2 3.9 1998 18.4 0.8 3.3 6.0 3.3 1999 14.9 0.7 3.0 6.3 3.3 2000 13.1 0.6 3.9 5.8 2.9 2001 7.1 0.3 1.8 3.9 2.3 2002 7.1 0.3 2.5 3.0 2.6 

Number of AMT returns as Alternative Taxes paid by AMT taxpayers as AMT paid 

Source: Statistics of Income Corporate Tax Return Files, 1987-2002. Data exclude S-corporations, regulated investment companies, real estate investment trusts a. Alternative minimum tax does not include increases in tax liability from firms unable to claim reugular business tax credits against 

regular tax because of the AMT. 

11
Table 4. Alternative Minimum Tax Credit Use: 1987-2002b 

Alternative Alternative Net minimum 

minimum tax Minimum tax tax (after Minimum Tax 

Year payments credits credits)a Credits Balance 

1987 2.2 - 2.2 2.2 

1988 3.4 0.5 2.9 5.1 

1989 3.5 0.8 2.7 7.8 

1990 8.1 0.7 7.4 15.2 

1991 5.3 1.5 3.8 19 

1992 4.9 2.3 2.6 21.6 

1993 4.9 3.1 1.8 23.4 

1994 4.5 3.3 1.2 24.6 

1995 4.3 4.8 -0.5 24.1 

1996 3.8 4.7 -0.9 23.2 

1997 3.9 4.1 -0.2 23 

1998 3.3 3.4 -0.1 22.9 

1999 3 3.4 -0.4 22.5 

2000 3.9 5.2 -1.3 21.2 

2001 1.8 3.3 -1.5 19.7 

2002 2.5 2.0 0.5 20.2 

Total 63.3 43.1 20.2 -

Source: Statistics of Income Corporate Tax Return Files, 1993-2002. 

Data exclude S-corporations, regulated investment companies, and real estate investment trusts. 

Percents may not equal 100 due to rounding.

b. Does not include unallowed nonconventional source fuel credit and unallowed qualified electric 

vehicle credit. 

12
Table 5. Distribution of Corporate AMT Liabilities by Asset Size Class, 1987-2002 

Percent of Corporations 

Asset Size 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

$0-$1 million 2.6 2.1 3.1 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.9 2.0 2.7 2.4 3.6 4.6 $1-$10 million 5.2 5.0 5.1 2.8 4.4 4.4 4.1 4.8 4.5 5.4 4.7 3.7 3.4 $10-$50 million 5.8 5.6 5.7 3.3 4.6 5.5 4.6 5.4 4.8 5.1 4.7 4.9 4.7 $50-$100 3.3 2.9 3.1 2.2 2.6 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.8 5.1 3.0 3.2 2.8 million $100-$250 million 

5.4 5.2 5.3 3.3 4.8 5.2 4.6 5.7 5.3 6.1 5.1 6.1 6.1 

$250-$500 million 

5.3 4.1 5.9 4.1 4.5 5.4 5.7 5.1 3.9 4.7 4.5 5.2 4.1 

$500-$1,000 

million 

4.2 5.4 7.9 5.7 6.3 8.5 8.6 7.6 6.7 6.7 7.6 7.4 7.7 

Over $1 billion 68.1 69.8 63.9 77.6 71.6 66.6 67.7 66.4 70.0 64.2 68.0 65.9 66.7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total AMT 2.2 3.4 3.5 8.1 5.3 4.9 4.9 4.5 4.3 3.8 3.9 3.3 3 Liability ($ billions) 

Source: Statistics of Income Corporate Tax Return Files, 1987-2002. 

Data exclude S-corporations, regulated investment companies, and real estate 

investment trusts. 

13
Table 6. Tax Status by Firm Size, 2002 

Percent of Corporations 

AMT 

Asset Size 

Positive Tentative Total AMT minimum tax AMT Loss Regular 

Tax Total number

Payments of firms 

$0-$1 million 

$1 million-

$10 million 

$10 million-

$50 million 

$50 million-

$100 million 

$100 million-

$250 million 

$250 million-

$500 million 

$500 million-

$1 billion 

Over $1 

billion 

0.13 0.13 0.26 70.60 29.14 1,852,825 

1.33 1.09 2.42 49.43 48.14 203,489 

3.96 2.55 6.51 50.54 42.95 26,277 

4.45 3.10 7.55 45.34 47.12 5,563 

5.79 3.60 9.39 36.96 53.65 5,212 

5.75 3.69 9.44 35.74 54.82 2,521 

5.52 3.97 9.49 37.49 53.01 1,611 

8.07 8.03 16.10 36.67 47.23 2,577 

Total 0.32 0.29 0.61 67.84 31.55 2,100,074 

Addendum: 

Percentage of 

corporate 

assets in each 10.61 14.47 25.08 23.63 51.29 100 

tax status 

Source: Statistics of Income Corporate Tax Return Files, 2002. 

Data exclude S-corporations, regulated investment companies, and real estate investment trusts

Percents may not equal 100 due to rounding

14
Table 7. Loss Firms and the Alternative Minimum Tax, 2002 

Percent of Corporations 

Positive AMT payments 

conditional on loss status (for Asset Size regular tax purposes) 

$0-$1 million 

$1 million-$10 million 

$10 million-$50 million

$50 million-$100 million 

$100 million-$250 million 

$250 million-$500 million 

$500 million-$1 billion

Over $1 billion 

Total

0.10 

1.20 

3.88 

5.02 

6.75 

4.56 

5.18 

6.44 

0.24 

Source: Statistics of Income Corporate Tax Return Files, 1993-2002. 

Data exclude S-corporations, regulated investment companies, and real estate 

investment trusts. 

15
Table 8. Tax Status by Industry, 2002 

Percent 

Alternative Minimum Tax 

Positive 

AMT 

Payments 

Tentative 

Minimum 

Tax 

Total Loss Regular 

AMT Tax 

Total Number 

of Firms 

Industry 

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 

and Hunting 0.40 0.21 0.61 64.74 34.65 62,927 

Mining 1.46 0.88 2.34 70.36 27.31 13,689 

Utilities 

0.46 0.44 0.90 75.01 24.09 6,148 

Construction 

0.34 0.15 0.49 67.08 32.42 229,765 

Manufacturing 0.68 0.65 1.33 66.39 32.28 136,154 

Wholesale and Retail Trade 0.30 0.21 0.51 64.68 34.81 421,528 

Transportation and 

Warehousing 0.79 0.41 1.20 70.3 28.50 79,149 

Information 

0.24 0.14 0.38 78.97 20.64 53,442 

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 

& Management of Companies 0.55 0.59 1.14 64.00 34.86 326,120 

Health Care, Services and 

Other 0.14 0.18 0.32 71.34 28.34 795,765 

Total 

0.34 0.29 0.63 68.04 31.33 2,100,074 

Source: Statistics of Income Corporate Tax Return Files, 1993-2002. 

Data exclude S-corporations, regulated investment companies, and real estate investment trusts. 

Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

16
Table 9. Corporate Assets in Each Tax Status by Industry, 2002 

Percent 

Alternative Minimum Tax 

Positive 

AMT 

Payments 

Tentative 

Minimum 

Tax 

Total Loss Regular 

AMT Tax 

Addenda: Percent 

of Total Corporate 

Assets in Each 

Industry

Industry 

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 

and Hunting 3.20 1.62 4.82 59.81 35.37 0.15 

Mining 21.01 10.46 31.47 37.88 30.65 1.05 

Utilities 10.20 25.27 35.47 28.62 35.91 3.59 

Construction 1.92 2.02 3.94 41.92 54.14 0.73 

Manufacturing 17.59 24.07 41.66 34.17 24.17 19.60 

Wholesale and Retail Trade 4.34 8.70 13.04 31.13 55.83 4.81 

Transportation and 

Warehousing 9.91 1.98 11.89 46.86 41.26 1.20 

Information 1.87 4.82 6.69 72.24 21.07 7.29 

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 

& Management of Companies 10.13 13.26 23.39 10.84 65.77 58.55 

Health Care, Services and 

Other 5.28 5.10 10.38 47.15 42.47 3.02 

Total 10.61 14.47 25.08 23.63 51.29 100 

Source: Statistics of Income Corporate Tax Return Files, 1993-2002. 

Data exclude S-corporations, regulated investment companies, and real estate investment trusts. 

Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

17
Table 10. Manufacturing Industry Tax Status, 1993-2002 

Percent of corporate assets 

Alternative Minimum Tax 

Yeara Positive AMT 

Payments 

Tentative Minimum 

Tax Total AMT Loss Regular Tax 

1993 20.02 31.83 51.85 15.27 32.88 

1994 21.75 30.49 52.24 12.49 35.27 

1995 23.54 24.40 47.94 13.22 38.84 

1996 27.31 19.81 47.12 11.28 41.60 

1997 20.76 28.24 49.00 9.54 41.46 

1998 28.17 23.08 51.25 13.41 35.33 

1999 16.35 34.36 50.71 14.80 34.50 

2000 18.68 24.08 42.76 17.88 39.36 

2001 7.16 19.27 26.43 33.51 40.06 

2002 17.59 24.07 41.66 34.17 24.17 

Source: Statistics of Income Corporate Tax Return Files, 1993-2002

Data exclude S-corporations, regulated investment companies, and real estate investment trusts

a. For years 1993-1997 industry classifications are based on SIC codes. For 1998-2002 industry 

classifications are based on NAICS codes. 

18
Table 11. Mining Industry Tax Status, 1993-2002 

Percent of corporate assets 

Alternative Minimum Tax 

Yeara Positive AMT 

Payments 

Tentative Minimum 

Tax Total AMT Loss Regular Tax 

1993 33.45 10.78 44.23 49.77 6.01 

1994 55.28 8.19 63.47 23.29 13.24 

1995 57.50 12.19 69.69 22.82 7.49 

1996 27.49 35.44 62.93 25.97 11.10 

1997 33.27 30.62 63.89 17.11 19.00 

1998 20.48 26.43 46.91 38.09 15.00 

1999 49.16 6.14 55.30 31.42 13.29 

2000 28.18 12.57 40.75 19.28 39.98 

2001 11.83 8.68 20.51 40.12 39.38 

2002 21.01 10.46 31.47 37.88 30.65 

Source: Statistics of Income Corporate Tax Return Files, 1993-2002

Data exclude S-corporations, regulated investment companies, and real estate investment trusts

a. For years 1993-1997 industry classifications are based on SIC codes. For 1998-2002 industry 

classifications are based on NAICS codes. 

19
Table 12. Percent of Total for Major Adjustment and Preference Items, 1993-2002 

Percent Adjustment or preference 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Depreciation adjustment 52.9 61.2 66.4 82.0 75.3 80.3 63.2 Adjusted current earnings (ACE) adjustment 46.7 37.8 37.2 37.0 31.5 29.9 48.5 Basis adjustment -8.8 -9.4 -16.2 -27.9 -15.7 -21.6 -21.4 Percentage depletion preference 3.1 5.3 7.2 5.1 6.3 5.2 4.6 Blue Cross, Blue Shield adjustment 5.3 2.7 1.7 1.3 1.1 2.2 2.7 Long-term contracts adjustment 1.1 1.1 2.0 2.3 1.9 0.9 0.9 Mining exploration and development 0.3 0.4 0.8 -0.1 0.1 0.0 -0.2 adjustment Other Adjustments -1.7 -0.6 -0.3 -0.2 -1.9 2.4 -0.7 Source: Statistics of Income Corporate Tax Return Files, 1993-2002. Data exclude S- corporations, regulated investment 

companies, and real estate investment trusts. 

20
Table 13. Relative Importance of Specific Alternative Minimum Tax 

Adjustments and Preferences, 2002 

Adjustment or preference Percent of AMT payers with item 

Depreciation adjustment 

Adjusted current earnings (ACE) adjustment 

Other Adjustments 

Basis adjustment 

Long-term contracts adjustment 

Depletion preference 

Accelerated depreciation of real property preference 

Tax -exempt interest preference 

Passive activities adjustment

66 

46 

30 

25 

5 

3 

2 

1 

1 

Source: Statistics of Income Corporate Tax Return Files, 1993-2002. Data exclude Scorporations, regulated investment companies, and real estate investment trusts. 

21