The Nixon era alternative minimum tax (AMT), the scourge of some advisors, business owners and residents of high-tax states, has been targeted by congressional Republicans.

“The House Republicans will be offering a bill to abolish the AMT in the late spring or early summer. It will be a part of our tax code form legislation,” Emily Schillinger, spokeswoman for Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, told Financial Advisor magazine.

That’s good and bad news for those who want to end the AMT, which functions as a second tax system with different rules and higher rates.

The controversial AMT has become one of more unpopular of taxes because it is complex and compliance is daunting, according to one Washington observer. It is “the epitome of pointless complexity,” said Scott Greenberg, an analyst with the Tax Foundation. “Nine presidential candidates---ranging from Marco Rubio to Bernie Sanders---pledged to eliminate it."

Who pays the AMT? Usually taxpayers with high incomes. But others can also be affected by the AMT, including  taxpayers who take lots of deductions.

It's typically paid by those with annual incomes of between $100,000 and $500,000, according to the Tax Foundation. 

It also hits households living in states with high taxes, which means one is much more likely to be soaked by the AMT in a state such New Jersey than in Wyoming, according to the foundation.

Also, the tax can impact those who itemize and who have a lot of children's tax deducations. The AMT doesn’t allow for a large exemption for households with many children, as does the regular tax code.

Republicans also claim the tax is a job killer, forcing business owners to reserve money for possible AMT liability that could be used for business growth.

“The AMT is particularly burdensome for small business owners, who often do not know whether they will be affected by the AMT until they file their tax returns,” congressional Republicans said in a tax policy statement.

Republican Capitol Hill sources said they now believe they can end the AMT because they have a president who also wants it ended. Either the speaker of the House or the House Ways and Means Committee chairman will sponsor a tax reform package that will include ATM abolition, Schillinger said.

But the abolition of the AMT is not certain, despite Republican control of Congress and the presidency. Ending the AMT is tied to a massive tax reform package that is expected to be the biggest change in the U.S. tax code since the Reagan era. That package will include reducing the corporate tax rate and other rules changes, many of which could be much more controversial than ending the AMT. That means if tax reform stalls, so could AMT elimination.

The AMT was enacted in 1969 during the presidency of Richard Nixon. Its original goal was preventing millionaires from using various deductions to dodge income taxes. But over the years, the AMT has inadvertently been imposed on some taxpayers who were not the original targets---millionaires aggressively using tax shelters.

Critics have been calling for its repeal for decades, arguing that it has grown out of control. In 1990, the AMT hit some 132,000 taxpayers. In 2000, the number was 1.3 million, according to a 2001 report by the Joint Economic Committee of the United States House of Representatives. Today some four million taxpayers pay the AMT, the Tax Foundation said in a report. 

Critics also say the AMT negatively impacts those effected by bracket creep---the tax wasn’t indexed for inflation---and others who itemize from high tax states and deduct state taxes.

For instance, normally a taxpayer can claim an itemized deduction for mortgage interest paid for a principal residence and one other residence. A taxpayer who itemizes deductions may deduct interest payments on up to $1 million in acquisition indebtedness along with up to $100,000 in home equity indebted. However, the deduction for home equity indebtedness is disallowed under the AMT. The corporate AMT, critics add, imposes burdens in the form of both direct tax costs and the cost of complexity.

The AMT, National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson said in a recent report to Congress, penalizes middle-income taxpayers for having children, marrying or paying state and local taxes. The AMT is unnecessarily complicated and burdensome, even for those who are not subject to it, she added. Many taxpayers must fill out a lengthy form to find out they owe AMT at all, she said.

“Permanently repeal the AMT,” Olson told Congress.