Is the NY CTC a match of the federal CTC before or after limiting by tax liability? #3915
-
The following integration test fails. It is not yet known whether the
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 10 comments 8 replies
-
@hua7450 and @pxu12 could you please take a look at NY and let me know where we start to differ from TAXSIM, I have forwarded you the files via email |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@martinholmer I believe what is causing this issue is the misunderstanding of the new York CTC (Empire State child credit) I believe that TAXSIM is not taking into consideration that NY is only applying the pre-2017 CTC rules which means that it could never interact with the refundable CTC amount. In this case TAXSIM projects $1,320 which is 33% of the TOTAL $4,000 CTC amount that the tax unit would be eligible for but what PE does is to take the 33% of just the $823 which the amount that the CTC is actually worth in this case, as this is the pre-credits tax value. Thus we assign $400 as opposed to $1,320 I believe this is the correct way of computing this credit, please let me know if I am misinterpreting something. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@PavelMakarchuk Hi Pavel, we just filled in the IT-213 form but got a different number than $1320. We are not sure if we got something wrong. line 6 and 7 come from the following worksheets: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Is the amount from Worksheet A line 10 "0"?
…On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 5:23 PM Pinyan ***@***.***> wrote:
@PavelMakarchuk <https://github.com/PavelMakarchuk> Hi Pavel, we just
filled in the IT-213 form but got a different number than $1320. We are not
sure if we got something wrong.
1000032817.png (view on web)
<https://github.com/PolicyEngine/policyengine-us/assets/129036923/8d6c9974-133a-4399-85e7-51bb59984d3e>
line 6 and 7 come from the following worksheets:
it213i_2021 (2).pdf
<https://github.com/PolicyEngine/policyengine-us/files/14376476/it213i_2021.2.pdf>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3915 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A2MPGQYSJOOSN3TR5HMVYQTYU5WG5AVCNFSM6AAAAABDNUJLIGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43SRDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHM4DKNJZGAYTI>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
<PolicyEngine/policyengine-us/repo-discussions/3915/comments/8559014@
github.com>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Could you add the worksheet a calc
Pavel Makarchuk ***@***.***> schrieb am Do. 22. Feb. 2024 um
6:06 PM:
… Is the amount from Worksheet A line 10 "0"?
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 5:23 PM Pinyan ***@***.***> wrote:
> @PavelMakarchuk <https://github.com/PavelMakarchuk> Hi Pavel, we just
> filled in the IT-213 form but got a different number than $1320. We are not
> sure if we got something wrong.
>
> 1000032817.png (view on web)
> <https://github.com/PolicyEngine/policyengine-us/assets/129036923/8d6c9974-133a-4399-85e7-51bb59984d3e>
>
> line 6 and 7 come from the following worksheets:
> it213i_2021 (2).pdf
> <https://github.com/PolicyEngine/policyengine-us/files/14376476/it213i_2021.2.pdf>
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#3915 (comment)>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A2MPGQYSJOOSN3TR5HMVYQTYU5WG5AVCNFSM6AAAAABDNUJLIGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43SRDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHM4DKNJZGAYTI>
> .
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
> <PolicyEngine/policyengine-us/repo-discussions/3915/comments/8559014@
> github.com>
>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
What is the question 2 that is needed for step 4?
…On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 6:18 PM hua7450 ***@***.***> wrote:
image.png (view on web)
<https://github.com/PolicyEngine/policyengine-us/assets/113824411/d470f81d-4485-46b5-ad91-6f6198e8b5bc>
It's actually from line 9, it is 0.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3915 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A2MPGQ65ISZVJM7UM432STTYU54XJAVCNFSM6AAAAABDNUJLIGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43SRDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHM4DKNJZGY2DK>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
<PolicyEngine/policyengine-us/repo-discussions/3915/comments/8559645@
github.com>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@PavelMakarchuk I figured out what went wrong in our former forms: the amount in Schedule A line 8 should be $0, which makes line 10 $823 instead of $0. The final result for NY Empire State child credit should be $1320 as you suggested. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
OK, thanks for all the discussion. Unless I'm missing something, the latest thinking is that the $1320 credit TAXSIM35 generates for this case is correct and the PEUS $400 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
This discussion has concluded and has generated issue #3995. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I've merged #4386, which aligns PE with TAXSIM with respect to the Empire State Child Credit. In both models, the $100 minimum is effectively nullified. I've reopened this discussion to determine whether that's correct. cc @feenberg |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
OK, thanks for all the discussion. Unless I'm missing something, the latest thinking is that the $1320 credit TAXSIM35 generates for this case is correct and the PEUS $400
ny_ctc
amount is incorrect. Is that the conclusion others have reached? If so, is there a development branch to fix this in Policyengine-US?