The chairman of a panel advising President Bush on tax reform said the panel would recommend a repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, for which an increasing number of middle-class Americans are now qualifying.

“The consensus is that we will repeal the AMT,” the chairman, Connie Mack, said yesterday. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensure that the wealthiest Americans did not entirely evade taxes through shelters and deductions. But as the tax structure evolved, and because the AMT was not tied to inflation, the number of Americans qualifying for the tax has been growing.

For New Yorkers, who face comparatively high state and local taxes, the AMT is particularly burdensome. If a taxpayer qualifies for it, substantial deductions for state and local taxes that normally apply are cast aside. In addition, the high cost of living in New York City means that the effect of the tax is greater.

A senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, Bruce Bartlett, said that in Washington the most pertinent question is not whether the AMT will be repealed but how revenue will be replaced after the action is taken.

“I don’t know of anybody who supports the AMT. The problem is one of revenue basically,” Mr. Bartlett said in a telephone interview. “It was an absolute certainty they would recommend to do something. But it’s like the weather: Everyone talks about it, but no one does anything. If it was easy, they would have done it already.”

In 2004, 332,000 New York taxpayers, including 144,000 filers in New York City, qualified for the AMT, nearly double the amount in 2000.

“With less than 7 percent of the nation’s individual taxpayers, New York State was home to about 12 percent of all AMT filers,” reads a report written by E.J. McMahon of the Manhattan Institute. Mr. McMahon published the report, titled “Another Middle Class Tax: how the federal AMT hits New Yorkers,” in January.

Because the AMT exemption level is scheduled to revert to old levels in 2006, Mr. McMahon estimates that if the law is not changed, the number of New York filers who qualify for the tax will hit 1.6 million next year and a quarter of New York taxpayers by 2010, including most of the state’s middle-class families.

If the current exemption level is extended, the number of New Yorkers exposed to the AMT will continue to rise but at a slower rate, according to the report.

Completely repealing the AMT would reduce federal revenues by almost $70 billion, according to the Manhattan Institute report. Alternatives to a complete repeal include a revision of the AMT that would allow for more deductions, including state and local taxes, and linking exemption to inflation.

The director of Economic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, Kevin Hassett, views the likely AMT repeal as one aspect of overall federal tax reform.

“The AMT disproportionately harms people in blue states, so its repeal is politically important if a plan is to have bipartisan appeal,” he said.

States such as New Jersey, Connecticut, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, and Rhode Island, as well as Washington, D.C., also show a high exposure to the tax.

“If you are a New York state and city resident, you are really getting whacked by the AMT,” a partner with the Manhattan accounting firm Shapiro Lobel, Andrew Blackman, said. “If you make $200,000 in Iowa, you are probably rich. Here, you are not.”

Mr. Blackman said his middle-class clients – families who earn between $150,000 and $200,000 – are now qualifying for the AMT for the first time.

He said that the alternative of making up for lost federal revenue with higher tax rates would be fairer, because it would eliminate the tax day surprise felt by many taxpayers when they first qualify for the tax.

“The first time anyone pays attention to the AMT is when they say, ‘What’s this line?’ ” he said. “It jumps up and grabs you.”

An example in the Manhattan Institute report showed that, under the current code, a married couple with three children, and earning a wage income of $140,000 who paid $17,600 in federal taxes, would owe an additional $600 under the AMT.

If no change is made to the current law and the AMT exemption returns to its lower permanent level, the same family would owe an extra $3,850 because of the AMT.

The nine-member advisory panel held it first public deliberations yesterday and will make its recommendations to the president by September 30. Some panelists said they were concerned that a repeal would allow some wealthier Americans to avoid taxes altogether.

Mr. Mack, who is a former senator, said the group would address these concerns and the apparent shortfall in tax revenue during its deliberations, according to press reports.