States Should Not Adopt the CAMT

35 Pages Posted: 11 Sep 2023 Last revised: 17 Sep 2023

See all articles by Nathan Ellinwood

Nathan Ellinwood

Stetson University, College of Law

Date Written: June 16, 2023


The question often emerges of whether corporations are paying their fair share. Because many legislatures answer this question negatively, there has been a decision to reintroduce the corporate alternative minimum tax. When changes are made federally, there are almost always effects at the state and local levels. States must disentangle the federal enactments to determine whether those changes align with the state's vision. In considering the corporate alternative minimum tax, adoption is not the answer for states.

This article begins by examining the evolution of the corporate alternative minimum tax and shifts to consideration surrounding federal adoption, both domestically and internationally. With a robust and technical foundation, this article turns to state and local adoption. The discussion examines how and why states would adopt the corporate alternative minimum tax and moves to why states should not do so — focusing on current trends, social costs, arbitrariness and volatility, and constitutional considerations.

As this article lays out, the revenue-raising benefits surrounding a state-level corporate alternative minimum tax do not outweigh the adverse implications. Adopting such a tax at a state and local level is contrary to the status quo.

Keywords: Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax, CAMT, IRA, Inflation Reduction Act

Suggested Citation

Ellinwood, Nathan, States Should Not Adopt the CAMT (June 16, 2023). Available at SSRN: or

Nathan Ellinwood (Contact Author)

Stetson University, College of Law ( email )

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics