Apply Arizona, Arkansas and California rules for a filer who can be claimed as a dependent

[MaxGhenis]

Summary

Arizona, Arkansas and California each have rules for a filer who can be claimed as a dependent on another return that the model never applied. A return on which the filer (or, if joint, either spouse) can be claimed has no dependents (IRC 152(b)(1); Publication 501: "you and your spouse can't claim any dependents on your joint return"), and these states also have their own rules for the claimable filer. This PR applies the ones the federal fixes do not already cover, each symmetric between head and spouse, and fixes two related errors found in the same formulas (final two rows).

Stacked on #10087 (claimable-filer-federal, merged in at 35a2cbc) and #10024. The 2026-10-09 audit (Subfleet research, sweep_s1) was written before those changes; rows they already fix are listed below with the YAML cases that now pin them.

Inputs. #10024 split the input. This PR reads, as the federal branch does:

• head_or_spouse_is_dependent_elsewhere_without_filing_exception for every "no dependents" rule (IRC 152(b)(1), and the childless CalEITC), so the would-be claimant's refund-only filing exception (Publication 501) restores the dependents;
• claimability (claimable_as_dependent_on_another_return and its helpers) for a claimable filer's own credits and California's standard deduction;
• the actual claim (claimed_as_dependent_on_another_return) where the statute says "claimed": Arizona's excise credit and California's renter exclusion.

Formula	Rule now	Source
az_dependent_tax_credit_potential	No dependent credit when either filer can be claimed	A.R.S. 43-1073.01 "for each dependent"; 43-1001(3): "'Dependent' has the same meaning prescribed by section 152"
az_family_tax_credit_potential, az_family_tax_credit_eligible	$40 for each filer, who still counts as "the taxpayer"; no dependents counted, and the income limit uses the no-or-one-dependent row, when either filer can be claimed	43-1073(B): "$40 for each person ... who is either the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse who does not file a return or a dependent"; (A) limits by number of dependents
az_increased_excise_tax_credit, ..._eligible	A filer who is claimed is not counted; on a joint return the other spouse still counts ($25); a filer who can be claimed but is not still counts; no dependents counted when either filer can be claimed unless the claimant's refund-only filing exception applies	43-1072.01(A), (C) and, for 2021-2041, 43-1072.02(A), (C): "for a taxpayer who is not claimed as a dependent by any other taxpayer"; $25 "for each person ... who is either the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse who does not file a return or a dependent"; 2025 Form 140 line 56 worksheet, PDF p.26: dependents count "provided that person(s) qualifies as a dependent for federal purposes"; the separate imprisoned-spouse example, PDF p.25 allows the otherwise-qualified spouse to claim the credit but excludes the imprisoned spouse. That is an analogy for the per-person treatment here, not an instruction about dependent spouses (reading 1)
az_families_tax_rebate (2021 return)	No dependents counted when either filer can be claimed on the 2021 return	Laws 2023, ch. 147, sec. 3(A), (D): a taxpayer who "claimed a dependent tax credit under section 43-1073.01" on the 2021 return; $250 "for each dependent tax credit claimed"
ar_personal_credit_dependent	No $29 dependent credit when either filer can be claimed; the filers keep their own credits	Ark. Code 26-51-501(a)(3)(B), Act 675 of 2005, sec. 14: "'dependent' has the same meaning as defined in § 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, in effect on January 1, 2005"; AR1000F instructions: "Each taxpayer and spouse is entitled to one personal tax credit"
ar_personal_credit_disabled_dependent (+ new ar_personal_credit_disabled_child_of_filer)	When either filer can be claimed, only a filer's child by birth or adoption qualifies; another dependent does not. The new variable defaults from parent ids (true without ids) and can be set to false for a stepchild, since parent ids also name step-parents	Act 417 of 1999: "'Individual' shall mean a child of the taxpayer's blood, an adopted child, or a dependent within the meaning of §26-51-501(a)(3)(B)"
ar_low_income_tax_joint	The joint, head of household and surviving spouse tables count no dependents when either filer can be claimed (so the no-or-one-dependent table)	Tables split "With One or No Dependents" / "With Two or More Dependents" (2025 tax tables); dependents as on line 7B, IRC 152
ca_standard_deduction	The dependent worksheet when either filer can be claimed: the smaller of the California amount and the larger of $1,350 or earned income plus $450 (federal 63(c)(5) amounts)	RTC 17073.5(c)(2) (AB 2797, 1998): "Section 63(c)(5) ... shall apply", indexed under 63(c)(4); 2025 Form 540 booklet p.13: "Use this worksheet only if your parent, or someone else, can claim you (or your spouse/RDP) as a dependent"
ca_exemptions	No personal, blind or senior credit for a filer who can be claimed (a joint return keeps one personal credit when only one spouse can be claimed); no dependent credits when either filer can be	RTC 17054; 2025 Form 540 booklet p.12, line 7: "Head of household, enter -0-" ... "only one spouse/RDP can be claimed as a dependent, enter 1"; lines 8-9: "Do not claim this credit if someone else can claim you as a dependent"; line 10: dependents "must be the same persons you listed as dependents on your federal income tax return"
ca_eitc_eligible (and through it ca_eitc, ca_foster_youth_tax_credit, ca_sf_wftc)	Without a CalEITC qualifying child, no credit when either filer can be claimed	RTC 17052 (IRC 32(c)(1)(A)(ii)(III)); FTB 3514 2025, Step 4 question f: "Can you be claimed as a dependent on someone else's 2025 tax return? Yes Stop here"
ca_renter_credit (+ new input lives_with_claiming_taxpayer)	A filer who is claimed and lived for more than half the year in the claimer's home is not a qualified renter; a joint return still gets $120 when the other spouse qualifies	RTC 17053.5(d)(2) (SB 1005, 2016, p.88): "An individual whose principal place of residence for more than 50 percent of the taxable year is with another person who claimed that individual as a dependent"; 2025 qualification record, questions 4-5
ar_federal_cdcc	Reads cdcc_qualifying_childcare_expenses (new on the federal branch), so a claimable return with no qualifying child counts no childcare even when a disabled adult is a qualifying person	IRC 21(b)(2)(A): expenses "for the care of a qualifying individual", adopted by Ark. Code 26-51-502(b)
dependent_standard_deduction_earned_income (new)	The filers' earned income as the dependent worksheet defines it, including farm income (Schedule 1 line 6) that earned_income leaves out	2025 Form 1040 instructions p.35: "Form 1040 or 1040-SR, line 1z, and Schedule 1, lines 3, 6, 8r, 8t, and 8u minus the amount, if any, on Schedule 1, line 15"; California's line 1 carries the federal line 2
Reforms: az_dependent_credit_reform, ar_dependent_credit_reform, ca_dependent_credit_reform, repeal_state_dependent_exemptions (California entry), ca_ab2591	Keep the rules above: no dependent credits on a claimable return, no own California personal, senior or blind credit for a claimable filer, and the dependent worksheet under AB 2591 (in years the election is off, and on the elected amount)	Default-parity YAML cases for a single claimable filer and both joint labellings
az_families_tax_rebate cap (related fix)	At most three dependents on a joint 2021 return, as on every other return ($750, was six and $1,500)	Sec. 3(C), (E): "One rebate will be issued for each full-year resident tax return for taxable year 2021"; "a maximum of three dependents for a qualifying taxpayer". ADOR's FAQ gives "$1,500 for married filing jointly" only for "Family A and Family B" who each had a 2021 return and "got married" in 2023
ca_renter_credit income limit (related fix)	2025 joint, head of household and surviving spouse limit $107,988 (was $107,987)	2025 qualification record, question 2: "$107,988 or less if married/RDP filing jointly, head of household, or qualifying surviving spouse/RDP"; 17053.5(j)(4): twice the single amount ($53,994). FTB's renter credit page still shows $107,987. 2021-2024 values match their booklets

Audit rows already fixed by #10024 or the federal branch (not changed here)

• AZ: 2026 dependent care subtraction (az_dependent_care_expense_subtraction reads cdcc_relevant_expenses and cdcc). Pinned in az_dependent_care_expense_subtraction.yaml (ordinary child barred, disabled child kept).
• AR: care credit qualifying count (ar_federal_cdcc reads count_cdcc_eligible). Pinned in ar_cdcc_potential.yaml; its childcare expenses are changed here (table above).
• CA: care credit (ca_cdcc from cdcc / ca_federal_capped_cdcc, on count_cdcc_eligible and, on the federal branch, cdcc_qualifying_childcare_expenses). Pinned in ca_cdcc.yaml.
• AZ, CA: student loan interest through federal AGI (az_agi, ca_agi read adjusted_gross_income).

Verified by reading each formula on this branch. Rows the audit marked "verify only" or "no change" were checked: Arizona's standard deduction (43-1041) has no dependent limitation and az_standard_deduction does not read the federal one; the Arizona aged exemption already excludes a person who is claimed (it reads the claim input, as Form 140 Box 8 does); Arkansas's own personal, aged, blind and deaf credits and California's young child tax credit (which needs a qualifying child, so the childless gate does not reach it) are unchanged.

Readings for Max (queue via the US + core hub)

All nine items remain undecided for Max. This response changes no formula or default. Statutory readings and missing-data choices are distinguished below; the alternatives are not implemented.

1. Arizona excise credit, one claimed spouse. Current default: with one actually claimed spouse and no dependents, the other spouse receives $25. A.R.S. 43-1072.02(A), (C) supplies the actual-claim bar and per-person amount. The 2025 Form 140 imprisoned-spouse example, PDF p.25 supports this only by analogy. Alternatives: $25 × 2 = $50 if the unclaimed spouse makes the return eligible and the joint worksheet's two filers, PDF p.26 both count; or $0 if subsection (A)'s taxpayer-level exclusion applies to the entire joint return. No default changed.
2. California renter credit, the residence input (missing data). Current default: lives_with_claiming_taxpayer is false when residence is unknown. For a 2025 single renter actually claimed elsewhere, with $2,000 AGI and $6,000 rent and all other conditions met, that gives $60; alternative true fallback gives $0. RTC 17053.5(d)(2), SB 1005 PDF p.88 requires both an actual claim and residence with the claimant for more than half the year. Claimability alone does not trigger this statutory exclusion. The choice is how to fill missing residence data, not which input the statute names.
3. California renter credit, joint return with one excluded spouse. Current default: $120 when one spouse is excluded under (d)(2) but the other is a qualified renter, with $2,000 joint AGI, $6,000 rent and all other conditions met. RTC 17053.5(a)(1)(A), (d)(2)–(3), SB 1005 PDF pp.87–88 supports the individual exclusion and joint amount; (d)(3) expressly extends a different exclusion to a spouse, while (d)(2) does not. Alternative $0: treat the FTB qualification record's questions 4–5 stopping rule, PDF p.25 as ending qualification for the joint return when either spouse answers yes. That is a weaker procedural inference from the form; no comparable statutory spouse-extension authority was found. It remains for Max, without changing $120. Under subsection (b), spouses maintaining separate residences in California all year receive $60 each if both qualify; an excluded spouse still receives $0 and the qualified spouse $60. Residence separation is an unmodeled fact, not this reading.
4. CalEITC, joint return with one claimable spouse. Current default: no childless credit, following RTC 17052's adoption of IRC 32(c)(1)(A)(ii)(III) and the joint-return dependency rule (Publication 501, joint return test). Alternative: apply FTB 3514 Step 4(d), PDF p.6 literally and skip the dependent question for joint filers. Worked model example: 2025 spouses age 25, wages $500 each, no children or investment income, one claimable, otherwise eligible: current $0 versus $1,000 × 7.65% × 0.85 = $65.025 under the model's continuous formula if allowed (the official table uses income bands). No eligibility or amount changed.
5. Arkansas low-income tables: which dependents. Current default: use the return's IRC 152 dependents, so zero when either filer is claimable without the claimant filing exception. Alternative: count household dependents regardless of 152(b)(1). Ark. Code 26-51-301, Act 483 of 2021 §6, PDF p.3 splits tables by dependent count without defining it there; §26-51-501(a)(3)(B), §7, PDF p.15 uses IRC 152 for personal credits. Worked 2025 joint example with $26,050 AGI and two household children: current no/one-dependent table $222; alternative two-or-more-dependent table $0 (2025 tax tables, PDF p.3).
6. Arkansas disabled-dependent credit, dependent without parent ids (missing data). Current default: an eligible disabled dependent with no parent ids keeps $500 on a claimable return, regardless of other household members' links; alternative deny-unknown default gives $0 unless parent ids establish a filer's child. Act 417 of 1999, PDF p.2 distinguishes a filer's birth/adopted child from the IRC-dependent route; missing ids cannot establish which applies. The documented helper default is “to true when the person has no parent ids (the relationship is unknown).” That also returns true for the filer, but the separate credit requires is_tax_unit_dependent: the disabled filer gets $0, the eligible disabled child $500.
7. Arkansas disabled-dependent credit, stepchildren (missing data). Act 417 of 1999, PDF p.2 limits the independent child route to birth/adoption; a stepchild needs the dependent route barred by IRC 152(b)(1) on the claimable return. Parent ids also name stepparents. Current default: a link naming a filer yields helper true, hence $500 for an otherwise eligible disabled child of unclassified relationship; an explicit false input for a known stepchild gives $0. Alternative false fallback unless the input establishes birth/adoption would give $0 for that same unclassified link, including a birth/adopted child without the override. The input and default remain unchanged.
8. Arkansas standard deduction (administrative clarification gap; audit P2, not changed). Ark. Code §26-51-430(a)(1), (b) affirmatively allows each taxpayer a deduction and entitles each spouse to one (Act 997 §1, PDF p.1; Act 1488 §1, PDF p.1). Current default reads the 2025 AR1000F note, PDF p.14 as saying dependents add no deduction to the taxpayer's return: $2,470 single or $4,940 joint. Alternative administrative reading denies a claimable filer's own $2,470: $0 single or $2,470 joint with one claimable spouse. The statute supports the full default; the note's intended scope needs DFA clarification. No authority was found for denying the whole joint deduction, so that alternative is withdrawn. Worked amounts assume sufficient income and no larger itemized deduction.
9. Arkansas tuition deduction (audit P2, not changed). Ark. Code 26-51-447 covers tuition for the taxpayer, spouse or their dependent (AR1075, PDF p.1) without defining dependent there. Current model has no student-role restriction; alternative IRC 152 meaning would remove dependent-student tuition on a claimable return without the claimant filing exception. Worked 2025 example: $1,000 qualified tuition at a two-year college gives min(50% × $1,000, applicable cap) = $500 currently versus $0 for the would-be dependent student under that alternative; taxpayer/spouse tuition gives $500 either way. No deduction or role test changed.

Not readings: California's AB 2591 reform applies the 63(c)(5) limit to whichever deduction is taken; review r2b reports that AB 2591 sec. 2 keeps 17073.5(c)(2) (bill text not fetched here: leginfo refuses automated requests). Settled by the input split: Arizona's excise credit and California's renter credit now read the actual claim, as their statutes say "claimed".

Not modeled (listed, not implemented)

From the audit (sweep_s1), unmodeled provisions that turn on a filer being claimable or claimed:

• AZ: solar energy credit (A.R.S. 43-1083: the resident must not be another taxpayer's dependent).
• AR: the state student loan interest deduction (DFA Subject 307: not claimed as a dependent); the developmental-disability certification the disabled-dependent credit also requires.
• CA: Golden State Stimulus I and II and the Middle Class Tax Refund (dependency exclusions on 2020 status).

Other findings (not fixed here)

• The federal basic_standard_deduction (from Make rules for a filer claimed elsewhere independent of which spouse is labelled head #10024) computes the dependent worksheet's earned income from tax_unit_earned_income, which leaves out farm income; it could read the new dependent_standard_deduction_earned_income. Not changed here (federal branch).
• az_families_tax_rebate is computed in every year (defined for Arizona), though only 2021's value is in az_refundable_credits; outside 2021 it should be zero.
• California 2026 amounts: the repo uprates 2025 values by the California CPI (standard deduction $5,835 single). The research lane reports FTB 2026 indexing of $5,900 / $11,800, exemption credits $158, dependent credits $491 and renter credit limits $55,830 / $111,660; not verified here (FTB's pages refuse automated fetches). Not changed here: a parameter update for all California filers.
• California renter credit from 2026: the research lane reports that a 2025 amendment to 17053.5 (AB 130, ch. 22, sec. 65) allows $250 / $500 credits only in years the budget funds them, otherwise $60 / $120; not verified here. The repo keeps $60 / $120.

Invariants

1. Swap invariance. Every changed output, Arkansas's unit tax before credits and state income tax are the same under either head/spouse labelling.
2. Monotonicity. Marking another filer as claimed never raises Arizona's dependent, family and excise credits, family credit eligibility or 2021 rebate; Arkansas's personal credits; or California's standard deduction, exemption credits, CalEITC eligibility and amount, foster youth credit and renter credit. Left out by design: taxes (Arkansas's low-income table can switch to a higher one).
3. Identities. When a filer can be claimed and the claimant filing exception does not apply (head_or_spouse_is_dependent_elsewhere_without_filing_exception): no Arizona dependent credit or 2021 rebate and no Arkansas dependent credit. When every filer is claimed (the claim input): no Arizona excise credit. A claimable but unclaimed filer still counts for the excise credit, and the filing exception restores dependents (both pinned in YAML).
4. Unchanged when nobody is claimable or claimed (as in the default dataset), except the two related fixes: Arizona's joint rebate cap (the rebate variable changes in every year, but it enters tax only in 2021) and California's joint renter credit income limit (+$1 in 2025, and in 2026 through uprating). Checked by the record-by-record microsimulation comparison below, not by the property test.

Tests

• YAML: variable-named cases for every changed formula and for the inherited care-credit readers: a single claimable filer (and an unclaimed single control where it differs), a joint return with one claimable spouse under both head/spouse labellings, both claimable, and a nobody-claimed control; expected values computed from the law and the repository parameters, with the arithmetic in each case's comments. One existing case changes: the Arizona joint rebate with six children now expects $750 (the cap fix). Round-3 rerun at b39eb1b909079700f739774ff6ae3c8d7834e3e3: all 24 changed YAML files passed, 329 cases. Each file ran directly in its own foreground process with the required four-thread caps.
• Property test policyengine_us/tests/core/test_claimable_filer_az_ar_ca_invariants.py (Hypothesis plus a seeded population and crafted renter and disabled-dependent cases in the three states, 2021, 2023, 2025, 2026; reuses check_swap and check_monotone). The cases vary the claim input, so claimability follows it and the filing exception is off; the filing exception and claimable-but-unclaimed rules are pinned in YAML instead. Outputs: the credits and deductions listed under invariant 2, ar_income_tax_before_non_refundable_credits_unit and state_income_tax. Round-3 rerun at b39eb1b909079700f739774ff6ae3c8d7834e3e3: 5 passed, in one foreground process with the required four-thread caps. CI group: test-other-python-rest-core. It caught a vectorization bug the single-household YAML cases could not (a tax-unit array combined with a person array in two Arizona formulas), fixed before the microsimulations.

Microsimulation impact

Real microsimulations on the default dataset, claimable-filer-federal (23c6229) vs this branch (97ca53c; to be refreshed against 35a2cbc at the new head), record by record (run.py / compare.py under the shared lock): 2025 and 2026, four full runs. The dataset sets claimed_as_dependent_on_another_return for nobody (weighted sum 0 in both years).

Variable	2025 base	2025 change	2026 base	2026 change
az_income_tax	$5.917bn	0	$6.290bn	0
ar_income_tax	$2.976bn	0	$3.042bn	0
ca_income_tax	$133.614bn	0	$142.426bn	0
state_income_tax	$549.394bn	0	$578.323bn	0
az_dependent_tax_credit, az_family_tax_credit, az_increased_excise_tax_credit, ar_personal_credits, ar_low_income_tax_joint, ca_standard_deduction, ca_exemptions, ca_eitc, ca_foster_youth_tax_credit, ca_renter_credit		0 records changed		0 records changed
az_families_tax_rebate	$286.8m	-$7.96m (21 records, 15,197 weighted units)	$279.9m	-$8.02m (20 records, 15,304 weighted units)

The rebate change is the joint cap fix. The variable is computed in every year, but only 2021's counts in Arizona's refundable credits, so it moves no tax in 2025 or 2026. 2021: the default dataset returns zero for every tax variable in 2021 (state_income_tax sums to $0 in the base run), so the cap fix's 2021 effect cannot be measured on it and is not estimated here.

axiom: TheAxiomFoundation/rulespec-us#1804 queued (AZ: dependent/family credits, undisputed excise, historical rebate, care reader) | TheAxiomFoundation/rulespec-us#1805 queued (AR: lawful credit units, known disabled-child routes, low-income/care readers) | TheAxiomFoundation/rulespec-us#1806 queued (CA: undisputed exemptions, dependent worksheet, CalEITC/FYTC/renter and care composition)

Merge with main after #10087

Merged main after #10087, preserving this PR's original main-relative changes. The three conflicts were nm_medical_expense_credit.py, its YAML test, and ca_cdcc_relevant_expenses.yaml; each takes main unchanged. Main's Arkansas AGI floor and tax-table rounding are preserved, and the two inherited federal changelog fragments are removed from this PR's diff. Merged subsequent main commits through 5ec60b209a without conflicts.

Corrected two filer expectations in ar_personal_credit_disabled_child_of_filer.yaml from false to true. Source and dependency comparisons show this was a pre-existing expectation mismatch at ff5a45308b, not a behavior change caused by main or either merge: the helper returns true for a person with no parent IDs, including the filer. The disabled-dependent credit separately requires is_tax_unit_dependent: a direct runtime probe confirms helper true and credit $0 for the filer in all three original cases. With both members of the first case disabled, the filer still gets $0 and the eligible child gets $500.

Finish-build validation at f8ef2f24fe8b3754cf1a5594acc999484cf24535: the requested reruns all passed with exit code 0: repeal (10), AR reform (15), AZ reform (8), CA AB2591 (14), CA reform (9), and the helper (3). The other 19 files retain 273 verified prior passes: 25 files and 332 tests combined. Formatting and lint passed. That finish build’s main-relative diff matched the original PR patch except for the two helper expectations and their comment; the round-3 additions are described below.

Response to round 3

1. Should-fix 1 — resolved by the hub correction, verified here. The documented default is “to true when the person has no parent ids (the relationship is unknown).” The corrected helper arrays [true, true] and [true, false] agree. An extended YAML case asserts helper [true, true] and actual credit [0, 500] for a disabled claimable filer and eligible disabled child; the credit separately excludes filers. No formula or default changed.
2. Nit 2 — fixed. The Arizona source table labels the PDF p.25 imprisoned-spouse example as an analogy, links the federal-dependent worksheet condition to p.26, and anchors the AB 2797 quotation at p.37.
3. Nit 3 — fixed. The excise comment and test names distinguish actual claims from claimability, identify the imprisonment analogy, and qualify the no-dependent rule with the claimant's refund-only filing exception. Expected values are unchanged.
4. Nit 4 — qualified with its source; current behavior retained. Reading 3 now cites FTB questions 4–5 for the procedural $0 alternative and explicitly states its weaker support: the statute excludes the individual and supports $120, with no comparable dependent exclusion extended to the spouse. Both readings remain for Max; no default changed.
5. Nit 5 — fixed. Reading 8 cites §26-51-430's affirmative taxpayer/spouse entitlement and describes an administrative clarification gap, retains the full deduction, compares only the person-level alternative, and withdraws unsupported whole-joint denial.
6. Nit 6 — fixed. Both unequal-earnings shared-helper cases now have explicit head/spouse roles and reversed copies preserving each person's facts; expected $2,500 and $1,500 are unchanged.

All nine Readings for Max remain undecided in code, with both readings, citations and worked amounts. Main was merged through 091a744ff2fb1b5765af0c7a131c5ad4afba7f2d without conflicts. Validation at b39eb1b909079700f739774ff6ae3c8d7834e3e3: all 334 tests passed (329 YAML cases across 24 files, plus 5 Python invariants). Every file ran in a separate foreground process, one at a time, with the required four-thread caps; no suites or microsimulations ran. uvx ruff@0.15.5 format . left all 7,009 Python files unchanged and uvx ruff@0.15.5 check . passed.

Test file	Passed
dependent_standard_deduction_earned_income.yaml	8
ar_cdcc_potential.yaml	17
ar_personal_credit_dependent.yaml	8
ar_personal_credit_disabled_child_of_filer.yaml	3
ar_personal_credit_disabled_dependent.yaml	21
ar_personal_credits_potential.yaml	6
ar_low_income_tax_joint.yaml	28
az_families_tax_rebate.yaml	17
az_family_tax_credit_eligible.yaml	12
az_family_tax_credit_potential.yaml	8
az_increased_excise_tax_credit.yaml	27
az_dependent_tax_credit_potential.yaml	10
az_dependent_care_expense_subtraction.yaml	16
ca_cdcc.yaml	19
ca_eitc_eligible.yaml	19
ca_foster_youth_tax_credit.yaml	6
ca_renter_credit.yaml	15
ca_standard_deduction.yaml	15
ca_exemptions.yaml	18
repeal_state_dependent_exemptions.yaml	10
ar/dependent_credit_reform_test.yaml	15
az/dependent_credit_reform_test.yaml	8
ca/ab2591/ca_ab2591.yaml	14
ca/dependent_credit_reform_test.yaml	9
test_claimable_filer_az_ar_ca_invariants.py	5

🤖 Generated with Claude Code