Repository navigation
Conversation
The federal standard deduction and 17 state formulas read only whether the tax-unit head is claimed elsewhere, so a joint return where one spouse can be claimed was taxed differently depending on which spouse was labelled head. Each formula now applies its jurisdiction's rule for that case (either spouse, single filers only, per spouse, or only when every filer is claimed), using two new label-independent helpers. Adds swap-pair YAML cases and a Hypothesis property test. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
… barred The New Mexico, Maine and Hawaii renters gates counted filers who are not claimed elsewhere, so a tax unit with neither a head nor a spouse (252 in the default dataset) looked like one whose every filer was claimed. A new helper, every_filer_is_dependent_elsewhere, requires a claimed filer and no unclaimed one. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…ss EITC - Hawaii's dependent standard deduction uses earned income net of the deductible part of self-employment tax, as the N-11 worksheet does. - New Mexico's medical care credit needs a filer who is both 65 or older and not a dependent when a filer is a dependent elsewhere (NMSA 7-2-18.13). - The federal EITC without a qualifying child requires that no filer can be claimed as a dependent (IRC 32(c)(1)(A)(ii)(III), Publication 596), so Missouri's working family credit no longer reaches such a couple. - Hawaii's food/excise credit keeps minor children receiving public support (HRS 235-55.85(c)) on a joint return where one spouse can be claimed. - Comments label the readings the law does not settle, and the property test covers the EITC and the food/excise exemption amount. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
… meaning - The federal and Oregon dependent worksheets use earned income net of the deductible part of self-employment tax, as Hawaii's now does. - Hawaii's food/excise minor-child count excludes children who can be claimed by another taxpayer and the filers themselves (Form N-311 line 3). - claimed_as_dependent_on_another_return documents what it stands for: a §151 deduction for the person is allowable to another taxpayer, so a person whose would-be claimer files only for a refund is not one (Publications 501 and 596); rules on actually being claimed read it too. - Hawaii's renters comment labels the mixed joint reading as an inference; the Hawaii dependent threshold cites HRS 235-2.4(a)(3) on its page. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
A filer who can be claimed on another return is treated as having no dependents (IRC 152(b)(1); on a joint return either spouse counts) and has no personal exemption (IRC 151(d)(2)); one who is claimed gets no education credits (25A(g)(3)), student loan interest deduction (221(c)) or recovery rebate (6428(d)(2), 6428A(d)(2), 6428B(c)(2)). The model read none of these. Now the child tax credit and credit for other dependents, the under-13 child and dependent care qualifying person, exemptions_count and its RI, DE, OH, OR, WI, HI and NM readers, the recovery rebates, the education credits and the student loan interest deduction apply them symmetrically for joint returns. Georgia keeps its own counts; the HI, WI and Treasury exemption reforms follow the corrected count. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Child and dependent care: childcare expenses do not count on a return with a claimable filer unless a child under 13 still qualifies (IRC 21(b)(2)(A)(ii)). - Tuition and fees deduction: not allowed to a filer who can be claimed (IRC 222(c)(3)), so the education credit bar no longer makes such a filer eligible. - Recovery rebates: the Armed Forces exception waives the identification rule only, not the exclusion of a spouse who is another taxpayer's dependent. - Georgia: the contributed refundable credit and SB 520 reforms count the same children as ga_ctc_potential through a new ga_ctc_eligible_child. - Education credits and student loan interest read the claimed input directly, since IRC 25A(g)(3) and 221(c) turn on an actual claim. - One reference per source document; quote IRC 24(h)(4)(A) exactly. - Tests: mixed-recipient care, tuition deduction, military rebates, Georgia refund cap, and the swapped New Mexico rebate case; the property test now covers the state readers of the exemption count. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
# Conflicts: # policyengine_us/tests/policy/baseline/gov/states/oh/tax/income/exemptions/personal/oh_personal_exemptions_eligible.yaml
#10024 now separates three facts: is claimed, can be claimed, and the would-be claimant's filing exception. - IRC 152(b)(1) gates (child tax credit, credit for other dependents, under-13 care child and its expenses, dependents in exemptions_count, ARPA dependents, Ohio dependents, the Hawaii and Wisconsin reforms) read head_or_spouse_is_dependent_elsewhere_without_filing_exception, so a filer within the Publication 501 exception keeps their dependents. - Own exemptions, recovery rebates and the tuition deduction read claimability. - Education credits and student loan interest keep reading the claimed input. - Tests: the filing exception and a filer who can be claimed but is not. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
#10024's food/excise credit, Act 115 rebate and renters credit took claimable filers off exemptions_count themselves. exemptions_count now leaves them out (and, outside the filing exception, the return's dependents), so those credits read it as it is; the filing-exception cases were one exemption short. The renters credit also leaves out a dependent who can be claimed by another taxpayer (Schedule X counts only people who cannot be), as the food/excise credit already did. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Education credits: a dependent student is not eligible on a return whose filer can be claimed outside the filing exception (IRC 25A(f)(1)(A)(iii), 152(b)(1)); the filer's own eligibility still turns on an actual claim. - Recovery rebates: no credit when every filer is a dependent of another taxpayer (IRC 6428B(a)); the CARES and CAA child prerequisite is a spouse with a valid SSN, whether or not that spouse is an eligible individual. - Child and dependent care: cdcc_qualifying_childcare_expenses holds the expense rule, and the single-parent work requirement reform and California's expenses read it. - References: Georgia HB 136 page 3; one entry per recovery rebate statute; quote IRC 24(h)(4)(A) exactly in the test comment. - Tests: dependent students, the two rebate cases, the reform and California expenses, and the Hawaii, Wisconsin and Treasury reforms with a claimable filer under both labellings. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Education credits: is_barred_from_education_credits_by_dependency holds the claimed-filer and dependent-student rules; both eligibility formulas and the reconciliation SSN reform's Lifetime Learning Credit read it, so the reform no longer turns a barred student's tuition into that credit. - Child and dependent care: childcare counts when any child under 18 is still a qualifying individual, so an incapacitated child aged 13 to 17 keeps it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Setting meets_eitc_identification_requirements on one person made it an input for every person, so the other spouse lost their SSN too. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The repeal reform's personal-exemption overrides counted every head and spouse, so a filer whom another taxpayer can claim kept a personal exemption under the reform that the baseline denies once #10024 and the claimable-filer PRs apply IRC 151(d)(2). Delaware, Hawaii, Nebraska, Rhode Island, West Virginia and Wisconsin now count head_spouse_count_not_dependent_elsewhere (West Virginia keeps its $500 exemption for a return on which no filer has one), Virginia's per-person exemption and Hawaii's aged exemption skip a claimable filer, and Vermont's count no longer depends on which spouse is labelled head. Michigan's baseline computes a claimable filer's return outside mi_personal_exemptions and, when the would-be claimant meets the filing exception, allows that return's dependents. The reform now overrides mi_exemptions as well, so those dependent exemptions are repealed too. California, Kansas, Maryland, Ohio and Oklahoma follow their baselines in the claimable-filer PRs that changed them. Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas from 2024, Kentucky and Massachusetts let a claimable filer keep the exemption, so their overrides are unchanged. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This branch has not been deployed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
WIP draft. This is stacked on #10087 and depends on the rest of the claimable-filer stack (see "Depends on"). I will rebase it onto
mainand mark it ready after those PRs merge.Summary
The contributed reform
repeal_state_dependent_exemptionsoverrides state formulas so each keeps the state's personal exemptions and drops dependent exemptions. Several overrides counted personal exemptions withhead_spouse_countoris_tax_unit_head_or_spouse, which ignore whether a filer can be claimed as a dependent on another return. Once #10024 and the claimable-filer PRs land, the baseline denies that filer a personal exemption in most of these states (IRC 151(d)(2) and the state rules that follow it). Under the reform, that filer got an exemption the baseline does not allow.After this PR and the stack, each override matches its baseline's rule for a claimable filer:
de_personal_creditde_personal_credit_potentialreadsexemptions_count)head_spouse_count_not_dependent_elsewherehi_regular_exemptionshead_spouse_count_not_dependent_elsewhere; the aged extra skips a claimable filerne_exemptionsexemptions_count, inclaimable-filer-ma-mi-mn-ms-mo-mt-ne)head_spouse_count_not_dependent_elsewhereri_exemptionsexemptions_count)head_spouse_count_not_dependent_elsewhereva_personal_exemption_personfiler & ~claimable)head_or_spouse & ~claimablevt_personal_exemptionshead_is_dependent_elsewhereandspouse_is_dependent_elsewhere)head_spouse_count_not_dependent_elsewherewi_base_exemptionexemptions_count)head_spouse_count_not_dependent_elsewherewv_personal_exemptionhead_spouse_count_not_dependent_elsewheremi_personal_exemptions,mi_exemptionsmi_exemptionscomputes such a return outsidemi_personal_exemptions: $1,500 for the claimable filer, and that return's dependents when the would-be claimant meets the filing exceptionmi_exemptions, without the dependentsca_exemptionsmd_total_personal_exemptionsks_exemptionsok_count_exemptionsoh_personal_exemptions_eligible_personclaimable_as_dependent_on_another_return)ga_exemptions,in_base_exemptions,ia_exemption_credit,ma_income_tax_exemption_thresholdky_family_size_tax_credit_thresholdtax_unit_sizeok_child_care_child_tax_creditInvariants
For every return and every overridden output, under the reform:
de_personal_credit_potential: the reform overrides the applied credit with its amount before the tax-liability limit, and the ordered cap applies afterwards.mi_personal_exemptions, which Michigan's baseline does not read on such a return.Tests
tests/policy/contrib/state_dependent_exemptions/repeal_state_dependent_exemptions_claimable_filer.yaml: 47 cases.tests/core/test_repeal_state_dependent_exemptions_claimable_invariants.py: properties 1-5 over Hypothesis-drawn and seeded couples and single filers in the 19 states, in 2023 and 2026. Each filer may be claimable, claimed or not, with or without the filing exception. Each property runs one baseline and one reform simulation over a vectorized batch, comparing the two systems. A YAML case runs one system, so it cannot express these comparisons.Local results (macOS, on a local merge of this branch with every stack branch): pending. I will add the pass counts, elapsed time and peak memory here.
Plan
main, re-check every override against the merged baselines, and rerun the tests.Not in scope (noted)
de_personal_credit_indv, which the reform does not override. On that path, own credits already follow the claimable-filer rule, but dependent credits survive the repeal.de_dependent_credit_reformrecords the same limitation.Depends on
#10024, #10087 (base), #10089 (HI), #10091 (VA), #10044 (RI, VT, WV, WI), #10043 (OK), #10045 (KS, MD), #10053 (CA), #10049 (IN), #10050 (GA) and the branch
claimable-filer-ma-mi-mn-ms-mo-mt-ne(NE, MA, MI; no PR yet). On #10087 alone, two things fail: the Oklahoma YAML case, which needs #10043's override copy, and the property test's comparisons with the baseline, which need the baselines in the PRs above.axiom: n/a: contributed reform (hypothetical repeal of state dependent exemptions), not a statutory provision
🤖 Generated with Claude Code