Historians might just view this week and next as the most propitious fortnight for tax reform in some time. First came news earlier this week that a presidential commission looks set to call for the abolition of the Alternative Minimum Tax. Then, next week, the House Ways and Means Committee in Washington will hear another round of testimony as it considers revamping our inefficient, outdated tax system. So we could be at the brink of progress.

Senator Mack, the chairman of the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, said Wednesday that there is a consensus among the nine members of the bipartisan committee in favor of scrapping the AMT. Practically, the move would reduce the federal tax bills of a lot of the middle-income New Yorkers who compose a portion of the 144,000 filers in the city who were ensnared by the provision in 2004.

For a family of five earning $140,000 a year, the AMT currently tacks a staggering $600 onto the $17,600 tax bill the household already pays each year. And politically, focusing attention on the AMT sheds welcome light on the need for broader tax reform, since the AMT is the epitome of everything that’s wrong with the current system.

It was enacted in 1969, when Congress noticed that the super-rich were covered by the tax code’s complicated web of deductions and credits, with the effect that some owed hardly any tax. Instead of eliminating all those deductions and credits – and simplifying tax returns for everyone – lawmakers opted to create a parallel income tax that would kick in if a filer didn’t owe “enough” under the usual system. To make matters even worse, the definition of “enough” wasn’t indexed to inflation, meaning that as the years have passed, the economy has grown, and income levels have increased, more and more people are paying AMT.

This unintended expansion of the AMT’s reach is broadening the base of support for its abolition. So a figure as serious as Mr. Mack can now publicly contemplate the tax’s demise with a straight face. Repeal, though, will not be simple – the AMT creates nearly $70 billion in federal revenue each year. Replacing that revenue will require other, more far-reaching changes, ideally supply-side measures, such as reductions in rates on the next dollar earned, that have been proven to actually increase revenues.

Next week, on Thursday, members of the Ways and Means Committee will hear testimony from their fellow representatives about radical tax reform proposals. Some of the proposals will be radically rationalized versions of the current income tax, such as the “Simplified USA Tax” proffered by Rep. Phil English, of Pennsylvania. Mr. English proposes eliminating most deductions and exemptions, and then creating a three bracket progressive rate system.

Rep. Michael Burgess, of Texas, has introduced a voluntary flat tax that would still give people the option of filing under the old system. It bears a striking resemblance to Steve Forbes’s famous flat-tax idea. Some will be radically different approaches to taxation.

One such is a proposal by Rep. John Linder, of Georgia, to abolish the Internal Revenue Service entirely and shift from an income tax to a national retail sales tax. The sales tax would differ from a European-style value-added tax because it would be assessed only at the register during the final sale to the consumer, as opposed to being tacked on at each stage of the production process.

Many prominent economists are lining up behind the idea of a consumption tax, and especially one such as Mr. Linder’s that would use a system of “prebates” to make it progressive. Others are backing a flat tax on income. This would eliminate the complexities of the current tax code, without necessitating the creation of a new bureaucracy to process progressive prebate and rebate transfers under a consumption tax. It sidesteps what some see as a flaw with the consumption tax idea: Unless the Congress overturns the 16th Amendment, we could end up with both a national sales tax and an income tax.

The point that needs to be made this week is that we are in a most promising moment. It’s one in which the budget deficit projection is being narrowed, as the revenue increases from President Bush’s supply-side tax cuts start to be felt. So suddenly, the idea of tax reform is back on the scope of our legislators – and none too soon, as a by-election is coming up a year hence and a presidential election two years hence. This is the time for our legislators to be showing us where they stand.