[PavelMakarchuk]

Fixes #9819.

axiom: us:statutes/26/32/c/2 encoded-correct

Change

• calculate_eitc_amount_from_parameters (policyengine_us/tools/state_eitc_helpers.py) now uses eitc_earned_income instead of filer_adjusted_earnings. This is the same earned income as the federal eitc_phased_in and eitc_reduction (Fix EITC earned income self-employment netting #8337). It combines both spouses' wages and net self-employment earnings and floors only the total, per Form 1040 EIC Worksheet B.
• The Indiana decoupled branch of in_eitc (2011–2022) gets the same change.
• eitc_earned_income also includes farm_operations_income and partnership_self_employment_net_earnings, which filer_adjusted_earnings does not. So these state credits now also count net farm earnings and partnership self-employment earnings, as IRC 32(c)(2)(A)(ii) does (net earnings from self-employment "within the meaning of section 1402(a)").

The helper feeds il_eitc, co_eitc (ITIN and under-25 paths), dc_eitc_with_qualifying_child and in_eitc_eligible. The Washington credit imports other helper functions, not this one. Other formulas still read filer_adjusted_earnings (Oklahoma ok_federal_eitc_phased_in and ok_federal_eitc_reduction, Washington wa_working_families_tax_credit and wa_working_families_tax_credit_age_expansion_eligible, and the NY WFTC contributed reform); they are outside this PR.

Tests

• Four existing cases set filer_adjusted_earnings as an input. They now set eitc_earned_income with the same value and keep the same outputs.
• Seven new cases have a joint return where one spouse has a self-employment loss. The expected values are TAXSIM-35 outputs for the same households (v39):

Test	Year	Expected	TAXSIM v39
IL, 2 children, wages 10,000, spouse SE −4,000	2021	432	432
same	2023	480	480
IL 65+ couple, wages 7,000, SE −2,000	2023	76.50	76.50
CO under-25 couple, no children, wages 10,000, SE −4,000	2023	229.50	229.50
DC, 1 child, wages 10,000, SE −4,000	2023	1,428	1,428
IN, 2 children, wages 10,000, SE −4,000	2022	240	240
same	2021	216	216

An eighth case (IL 2023, wages 10,000, spouse farm loss −4,000) expects 480, computed by hand: earned income 6,000, 40% × 6,000 = 2,400 (Rev. Proc. 2022-38, section 3.06), 20% = 480.

Before this change, PE gave 720, 800, 107.10, 300, 2,380, 400 and 360.

Local runs: the IL, CO credit, DC, IN, WA and federal EITC test folders pass (2,218 tests).

Axiom

us:statutes/26/32/c/2 (earned_income_before_section_112_election) floors the tax-unit total once, the netting this PR adopts, and the IL, IN and CO modules take the federal credit as their base. Composing the IL "as if" bases (age and ITIN routes) is queued in TheAxiomFoundation/rulespec-us#1699.

Census effect

In the TAXSIM-35 census comparison for IL, CO, DC and IN (2021–2025), 15 household-years change, 12 now match TAXSIM, and none that matched before stop matching. The other 3 are 2021 Illinois households that still differ by the Illinois rebate.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (909176a) to head (a8405ee).
⚠️ Report is 670 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main     #9820   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files            4         1    -3     
  Lines           76        40   -36     
  Branches         2         3    +1     
=========================================
- Hits            76        40   -36     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[hua7450]

Reviewed 03e3718. No calculation defect found in the static review: netting both spouses' wages and self-employment earnings before flooring the tax-unit total matches the IRS EIC Worksheet B treatment. I traced the helper's Illinois, Colorado, DC and Indiana callers, including Indiana's separate 2011–2022 calculation.

• Please add the required axiom: parity declaration to the PR description, following CLAUDE.md's Axiom Parity section.
• Optional regression coverage: add a spousal self-employment loss case in the state-credit phase-out range. The new cases primarily exercise phase-in and maximum-credit behavior.

Verification limits: I did not independently run the tests. All 37 check runs on this commit are successful as of October 6, 02:40 UTC. The source audit is partial: IRS and DC material was accessible, but some historical Illinois, Colorado and Indiana primary documents could not be retrieved.

[PavelMakarchuk]

Thanks. Merged main (both sides had appended cases to co_eitc.yaml and il_eitc.yaml; kept both) and added the phase-out range case you suggested:

• Illinois 2023, joint, two children, head wages 40,000, spouse self-employment loss 5,000. Earned income and AGI are 35,000, above the 28,120 joint phase-out start (Rev. Proc. 2022-38, section 3.06). Federal EITC 6,604 − 0.2106 × 6,880 = 5,155.07; IL EIC 20% = 1,031.01. Without netting the old helper gives 820.41 (earned income 40,000). It fails on main and passes here.

The IL, CO, DC and IN tests pass (2,442). I will add the axiom: line separately.

[DTrim99]

PR Review: Net spouses' self-employment losses in state EITC helper earned income (IL, CO, DC, IN)

Summary

The PR switches calculate_eitc_amount_from_parameters in policyengine_us/tools/state_eitc_helpers.py, and the Indiana decoupled branch of in_eitc, from filer_adjusted_earnings to eitc_earned_income. filer_adjusted_earnings floors each spouse's earnings at zero before adding them. eitc_earned_income is what the federal eitc already uses: both spouses' wages and net self-employment earnings, with only the total floored at zero. So a joint couple where one spouse has a Schedule C loss now gets the same earned income in the IL EIC, the CO EITC (ITIN and under-25 paths), the DC EITC with a qualifying child, Indiana eligibility from 2023, and the Indiana decoupled credit for 2011–2022 as in PolicyEngine's own federal EITC.

• Law. The fix is correct for every state and year it touches. Each credit is a percentage of the IRC 32 credit, or of the credit the filer "would have been eligible" for with only the age or SSN rule waived. None of the four states redefines earned income. Federal earned income on a joint return combines both spouses' amounts, including a net loss.
• Code. It is a one-variable swap in two places. It is vectorized and leaves non-joint filers unchanged.
• Tests. All 8 new expectations check out by hand. The 4 renamed inputs keep their outputs.
• Merged tree. The merge with current main (320 commits ahead) is clean, and nothing on main conflicts with the change semantically. Main's newer EITC work (pre-tax payroll wages Exclude pretax payroll deductions from EITC and ACTC earnings #10030, disability pensions Count taxable employment disability benefits in federal gross income (IRC 105(a)) #10185, section 911 Deny the refundable CTC and the EITC to section 911 filers (26 U.S.C. 24(d)(3), 32(c)(1)(C), 6012(c)) #9750) changed both variables the same way, so the only remaining differences are the flooring and two income sources (Suggestion 2).
• Open item. The PR body still has no axiom: line, and Pavel is staff, so that is the one SHOULD.

Critical (must fix)

None.

Should address

1. Add the axiom: line to the PR body.

The body has no line starting with axiom in any form. On 2026-10-08 the author wrote "I will add the axiom: line separately", and hua7450's review of 03e3718 asked for it too. CLAUDE.md requires the line on any PR that fixes policy, and axiom: needed isn't available to staff.

Recommended line. rulespec-us already encodes the provision being fixed. In us/statutes/26/32/c/2.yaml, earned_income_before_section_112_election is a TaxUnit amount: max(0, employee_compensation_includible_in_gross_income + net_earnings_from_self_employment_after_self_employment_tax_deduction - …). That floors the tax-unit total once, which is the netting this PR adopts. The state modules take the federal credit as their base: us-il/statutes/35/5/212.yaml (federal_earned_income_credit_base_for_illinois_credit), us-in/statutes/6-3/1-21-6.yaml (federal_earned_income_tax_credit_claimed_for_taxable_year) and us-co/statutes/39/39-22-123.5.yaml. So this line fits:

axiom: us:statutes/26/32/c/2 encoded-correct

Two optional additions. The IL "as if" bases (age and ITIN routes) are caller-supplied inputs in rulespec, and composing them is already queued in rulespec-us#1699 (IL1; OPEN, pe-parity). Pavel could note that issue. He could also ask for a 32(c)(2) companion case with a negative self-employment amount, since none of the module's four cases has one.

Suggestions

1. The same per-spouse floor remains in other readers of filer_adjusted_earnings; file a follow-up issue. Issue State EITC helper floors each spouse's earnings at zero instead of netting self-employment losses (IL, CO, DC, IN) #9819 covers only the helper and the Indiana branch, so the PR closes it as scoped. But these formulas on main still read the per-person-floored variable:

   • Oklahoma: ok_federal_eitc_phased_in.py:39 and ok_federal_eitc_reduction.py:39 (the federal-style credit "frozen at 2020 values").
   • Washington: wa_working_families_tax_credit.py:83 and wa_working_families_tax_credit_age_expansion_eligible.py:59 (the phase-out and the maximum-qualifying-income test).
   • The NY WFTC contributed reform: reforms/states/ny/wftc/ny_working_families_tax_credit.py:120, 164, 301, 349.

   Where those credits follow federal earned income, a joint couple with a self-employment loss gets an overstated credit, as IL did before this PR. The body's line "The Washington credit imports other helper functions, not this one" is accurate, but it could leave readers thinking WA is unaffected.

2. Say in the body and changelog that the change also adds farm and partnership earnings. eitc_earned_income includes farm_operations_income and partnership_self_employment_net_earnings. filer_adjusted_earnings (wages, self_employment_income, sstb_self_employment_income, disability pensions) does not. So the four state credits now count farm profit and partnership self-employment earnings too. That is correct: 32(c)(2)(A)(ii) counts net earnings from self-employment "within the meaning of section 1402(a)", which includes both. But the body and changelog describe only the netting. One sentence, plus an optional farm-income case, would record the change.

Verified correct

• Statute, IL. 35 ILCS 5/212(a): "With respect to the federal earned income tax credit allowed for the taxable year under Section 32 … (v) 18% of the federal tax credit for each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2018 and beginning prior to January 1, 2023, and (vi) 20% … on or after January 1, 2023."
  • (b-5) covers ages 18–24, (b-10) covers "the age of 65 or older" and (b-15) covers ITIN filers. Each grants the credit "based on the federal tax credit for which the taxpayer would have been eligible", waiving only the age requirement in 32(c)(1)(A)(ii) or the SSN restriction in 32(m).
  • Nothing in § 212 changes the earned-income definition, and the 65+ test's "(b-10)" citation is correct.
• Statute, the other states. CO pays a percentage of the federal IRC 32 credit (C.R.S. 39-22-123.5), including for ITIN and under-25 filers computed as if federally eligible. DC matches the federal credit (D.C. Code 47-1806.04(f)(1)(B-1), 70% for 2022–2024), with the ITIN rule from 2023 in (f)(1)(D)(ii). Indiana's credit is a percentage of the federal credit (IC 6-3.1-21-6), and its 2011–2022 decoupled branch only freezes the schedule parameters. None of these redefines earned income.
• Federal netting. 26 U.S.C. 32(c)(2)(A)(ii) counts "the amount of the taxpayer's net earnings from self-employment". The 2023 Form 1040 instructions, Worksheet B (PDF p. 45), say "If you are married filing a joint return, include your spouse's amounts … with yours" and, at line 4b, "Combine lines 1e, 2c, 3, and 4a. This is your total earned income." A spouse's loss therefore reduces the couple's earned income, and only a total of zero or less ends the credit.
• Variable equivalence on the merged tree. On main, both variables use federal taxable wages (irs_employment_income, or employment_income minus the excluded wages), add earned_disability_benefits, subtract half of SE tax (percent_deductible 0.5 = (1 − self_emp_tax_adj 0) × employer_share 0.5), and exclude dependents. The only differences are the per-person floor and the farm and partnership sources (Suggestion 2). Single filers' results don't change, because a single person's wages and losses already net before that person's floor.
• Hand-checked expectations (8 new, plus 4 renamed inputs). In every case the SE loss carries no SE tax, so AGI equals earned income.
  • IL 2021, 2 children, wages 10,000, spouse SE −4,000: earned income 6,000; 40% × 6,000 = 2,400 (under the 5,980 maximum); AGI 6,000 is below the phase-out; 18% gives 432.
  • Same household in IL 2023: 2,400 (under the 6,604 maximum); 20% gives 480.
  • IL 2023, 65+ couple, SE −2,000 and wages 7,000: earned income 5,000; childless 7.65% × 5,000 = 382.50 (under 600); joint childless phase-out starts at 16,370; 20% gives 76.50.
  • IL 2023 phase-out case, wages 40,000 and SE −5,000: earned income and AGI 35,000; reduction 0.2106 × (35,000 − 28,120) = 1,448.93; 6,604 − 1,448.93 = 5,155.07; 20% gives 1,031.01. Without netting it would be 0.2 × (6,604 − 0.2106 × 11,880) = 820.41. This is the case hua7450 asked for.
  • CO 2023, under-25 couple aged 22, no children: the federal age floor (25) fails, so the under-25 path applies; 7.65% × 6,000 = 459; the 2023 match is 0.5, giving 229.50.
  • DC 2023, 1 child: 34% × 6,000 = 2,040 (under 3,995; phase-out starts at 28,130 joint); 70% gives 1,428.
  • IN 2022, decoupled branch, 2 children (cap 2): 40% × 6,000 = 2,400; AGI is below the 2-child phase-out start without the joint bonus; the match is 0.10, giving 240. Eligibility holds because the federal eitc (2,400) is above 0, the return is joint and there is no investment income.
  • IN 2021: 2,400 × 0.09 = 216.
  • Renamed inputs (DC 294.12, IL 2,941.18 twice, IN eligibility 10,000): each sets eitc_earned_income to the old filer_adjusted_earnings value, so the outputs stay the same.
• Callers. The helper's only reader of calculate_eitc_amount_from_parameters is calculate_eitc_like_amount, which il_eitc, co_eitc, dc_eitc_with_qualifying_child and in_eitc_eligible (2023+ static-conformity path) call. The WA files import only eitc_filing_requirement_met and similar helpers. dc_eitc_without_qualifying_child uses the federal eitc_phased_in and tax_unit_earned_income, so it isn't affected.
• Main interactions. Since the merge base, main changed the helper (section 911 gate), eitc_earned_income (Exclude pretax payroll deductions from EITC and ACTC earnings #10030, Count taxable employment disability benefits in federal gross income (IRC 105(a)) #10185), dc_eitc_without_qualifying_child and in_refundable_credits. None of them overlaps the swapped line. No IL, CO, DC or IN tax test on the merged tree supplies a spouse SE loss, farm income or partnership earnings apart from this PR's cases, and every remaining filer_adjusted_earnings reference in tests is an output of the still-existing variable.
• Code. The change is vectorized (a variable swap) and makes no new state-gated key lookups, so the NH Add New Hampshire state supplementation for 2026 #10156 pattern doesn't apply.
• Changelog. changelog.d/state-eitc-helper-earned-income.fixed.md is a top-level fragment with the fixed type.
• Source-conflict ratchet (Tie source-conflict markers to the register shared with Axiom #10287). The PR changes no comments in variables/, parameters/ or reforms/ (the two .py edits are code-only), so test_source_conflicts.py is unaffected.
• Partner tests. No files under tests/policy/baseline/partners/** are touched.

Axiom line assessment

There is no axiom: line in the body (checked in every format). That is a SHOULD for a staff policy fix (see Should 1). The recommended line is axiom: us:statutes/26/32/c/2 encoded-correct. rulespec-us has no issue that references #9820.

CI status

All 28 checks pass at 6232ba053b (gh pr checks 9820), including the four Baseline states shards and Quick Feedback. None is pending. That run is from 2026-10-08, before main's 320 newer commits. I tried running the IL and IN YAML on the merged tree locally, but the local policyengine-core is too old to import current main (_uprating_index_value ImportError). The merged-tree conclusions above therefore come from static tracing and the hand checks.

Branch status

The branch is 3 commits ahead of main and 320 behind. git merge-tree --write-tree PolicyEngine/main 6232ba053b merges cleanly, with no conflicts.

Sibling notes:

• Base the Illinois EIC on the federal EITC alone before 2023 and add the 2000–2017 match rates #9824 (open) also edits il_eitc.yaml. It merges cleanly with this PR (the shared edit is identical), and this PR's 2021 IL case (18%) still gives 432 under Base the Illinois EIC on the federal EITC alone before 2023 and add the 2000–2017 match rates #9824's pre-2023 branch.
• Use the current-year federal EITC for Indiana EITC eligibility in 2024 and 2025 #10249 (open) conflicts with this PR in in_eitc.yaml, because both append cases at the end of the file. Whichever merges second should keep both blocks. Use the current-year federal EITC for Indiana EITC eligibility in 2024 and 2025 #10249 also stops in_eitc_eligible from calling the helper from 2023, which leaves this PR's Indiana change confined to the 2011–2022 decoupled branch.

Verdict: REQUEST_CHANGES

[DTrim99]

The fix is correct for IL, CO, DC and IN in all years: a spouse's SE loss nets on joint returns under 32(c)(2) and Worksheet B line 4b. All 8 new expectations hand-check, and the merged tree is clean. One should-address item: there's no axiom line; us:statutes/26/32/c/2 encoded-correct fits (IL composition is already queued in #1699). Two suggestions, including a follow-up for OK, WA and the NY WFTC reform. Full report in the comment above.

[PavelMakarchuk]

Thanks, Daniel. Commit 6a5fb64 and an edit of the PR body address the review.

Should 1 (axiom line). The body now has axiom: us:statutes/26/32/c/2 encoded-correct. I checked that earned_income_before_section_112_election in us/statutes/26/32/c/2.yaml is a TaxUnit amount that floors the total once. The body also names TheAxiomFoundation/rulespec-us#1699 (open, pe-parity) for the IL "as if" bases.

Suggestion 2 (farm and partnership earnings). The body and the changelog fragment now say that the four credits also count net farm earnings and partnership self-employment earnings, under 32(c)(2)(A)(ii) and 1402(a). I added the farm case: IL 2023, wages 10,000, spouse farm loss −4,000, expected 480. The IL EIC test file passes (14 tests).

Suggestion 1 (other readers of filer_adjusted_earnings). The body now names the OK, WA and NY WFTC formulas as outside this PR, so that readers do not think WA is unaffected. I will not file the follow-up issue from this PR.

[DTrim99]

PR Review (round 2): Net spouses' self-employment losses in state EITC helper earned income (IL, CO, DC, IN)

Summary

Since round 1 (6232ba053b), Pavel pushed one commit (6a5fb64f69: an IL farm-loss test case plus one changelog sentence) and edited the PR body. That clears every round-1 finding:

• Axiom line. The body now has axiom: us:statutes/26/32/c/2 encoded-correct. The module is on rulespec-us main and encodes the netting this PR adopts.
• Farm and partnership earnings. The body and changelog now disclose them, and a new test covers a farm loss.
• Other readers of filer_adjusted_earnings. The body names the OK, WA and NY WFTC readers as out of scope, and Pavel filed follow-up issue Oklahoma EITC, Washington WFTC and the NY WFTC reform floor each spouse's earnings at zero instead of netting self-employment losses #10448.

The new expectation (480) checks out by hand. It also tells the two variables apart: current main gives 800 for the same household. CI ran this head merged with main (dd7acdbabc), and all four touched test files pass. The one failing check, "Package and compatibility", comes from main's uv pin and not from this PR (see CI status). Nothing critical or should-level is open, and one optional body suggestion remains.

Prior findings

Finding	Status	Evidence
Should 1: add the axiom: line	Fixed	The body has a single line, axiom: us:statutes/26/32/c/2 encoded-correct. On rulespec-us main, us/statutes/26/32/c/2.yaml (last changed 2026-06-29) defines earned_income_before_section_112_election as a TaxUnit amount, max(0, employee_compensation_includible_in_gross_income + net_earnings_from_self_employment_after_self_employment_tax_deduction - …). That floors the tax-unit total once. Farm and partnership earnings are net earnings from self-employment under 1402(a), so they enter through the same input. The body also cites rulespec-us#1699 (OPEN, pe-parity) for composing the IL "as if" bases.
Suggestion 1: OK, WA and the NY WFTC reform still read the per-spouse-floored filer_adjusted_earnings; file a follow-up issue	Fixed	The body now names ok_federal_eitc_phased_in, ok_federal_eitc_reduction, wa_working_families_tax_credit, wa_working_families_tax_credit_age_expansion_eligible and the NY WFTC reform as outside this PR. Pavel's comment said he would not file the issue from this PR, but he then opened #10448 (2026-10-26, OPEN), which lists all eight lines. On the merged tree those eight are the only remaining readers of filer_adjusted_earnings in variables/, reforms/ and tools/.
Suggestion 2: disclose that farm and partnership SE earnings now count	Fixed	The body has a new bullet. The changelog adds: "These credits now also count net farm earnings and partnership self-employment earnings, as IRC 32(c)(2)(A)(ii) does." The new case "IL EIC nets a spouse's farm loss, 2023" expects 480 (hand-checked below).

New findings

Critical: none.

Should address: none.

Suggestions

1. Two small updates to the PR body (optional).
   • The Tests section says "Seven new cases have a joint return where one spouse has a self-employment loss", and the TAXSIM table and the "Before this change" list have seven entries. The diff has eight such cases, plus the farm case. The missing one is the phase-out case (IL 2023, wages 40,000, spouse SE −5,000, expected 1,031.01; the old helper gives 820.41). A row for it, marked as hand-computed like the farm case, would make the count right.
   • The sentence that puts the OK, WA and NY WFTC readers "outside this PR" could link Oklahoma EITC, Washington WFTC and the NY WFTC reform floor each spouse's earnings at zero instead of netting self-employment losses #10448.

Verified

• New expectation (IL 2023, wages 10,000, spouse farm loss −4,000, 2 children): 480.
  • The spouse's taxable SE income (−4,000 × 0.9235) is negative, so SE tax and the SE-tax deduction are 0.
  • eitc_earned_income includes farm_operations_income: max(0, 10,000 − 4,000) = 6,000.
  • AGI is also 6,000, because farm_operations_income is in gov.irs.gross_income.sources.
  • 2023, two children: 40% × 6,000 = 2,400, under the 6,604 maximum.
  • Phase-out start is 21,560 + 6,560 joint = 28,120, and max(6,000, 6,000) is below it.
  • IL 2023 match 20% gives 480.
  • On main, filer_adjusted_earnings (built on earned_income = wages + self_employment_income + sstb_self_employment_income) leaves the farm loss out. Main's earned income is 10,000, giving 4,000 × 20% = 800, so the case fails on main and passes here.
• Test comments. The citations are right. Rev. Proc. 2022-38 section 3.06 is the 2023 EITC table, and net farm profit or loss is net earnings from self-employment under IRC 1402(a), which 32(c)(2)(A)(ii) imports.
• Unchanged since round 1. The two code swaps and the eight earlier cases (432, 480, 76.50, 1,031.01, 229.50, 1,428, 240, 216) and the four renamed inputs are byte-identical to round 1. All of them pass in this head's CI run on the merged ref.
• Callers on the merged tree. calculate_eitc_like_amount is still called only by co_eitc (ITIN and under-25 paths), dc_eitc_with_qualifying_child, il_eitc and in_eitc_eligible. Both swapped lines (state_eitc_helpers.py:86 and in_eitc.py:60) survive the merge.
• Source-conflict ratchet. The new comments are in a test YAML and contain no conflict-sounding words. The guard-test and Python shards passed on the merged ref.
• Partner tests. No files under tests/policy/baseline/partners/** are touched.

Axiom

axiom: us:statutes/26/32/c/2 encoded-correct is valid. The anchor exists on rulespec-us main, and its TaxUnit total with a single zero floor matches the behaviour this PR adopts. The state modules take the federal credit as their base. The IL "as if" composition is honestly pointed at rulespec-us#1699, which is OPEN and labelled pe-parity. The module's companion tests still have no negative self-employment case; that is optional and not required for encoded-correct.

CI

At 6a5fb64f69, 33 checks pass and 1 fails. None is pending. The run started 2026-10-25 22:42 UTC on refs/pull/9820/merge, which is this head merged into main at dd7acdbabc.

• Passing tests.
  • All Baseline shards pass. il_eitc.yaml (14 cases) and dc_eitc_with_qualifying_child.yaml run in states-shard-4, co_eitc.yaml in states-shard-2, and in_eitc.yaml (9 cases) and in_eitc_eligible.yaml in states-shard-1.
  • Contrib, Python, Microsimulation, Household API Partners, PR validation and Quick Feedback also pass.
• The failure is main-caused, not real. In "Package and compatibility", main's workflow installs uv 0.13.4, which Stop trusting the compromised eMudhra CA certificates #10377 pinned on 2026-10-22. It then runs release_lock.py --refresh against this branch's uv.lock, which is still revision = 3. The step stops with "Versioning changed the reviewed dependency graph; prepare and review a registry lock first" (exit 2). Stop trusting the compromised eMudhra CA certificates #10377's release-lock notes say uv 0.13.4 "writes revision = 5 whenever it re-resolves", and main's lock is already revision 5. The PR does not touch uv.lock, so merging main and re-running should clear it.

Branch

• The branch is 4 commits ahead of main and 356 behind.
• git merge-tree --write-tree PolicyEngine/main 6a5fb64f69 is clean, with no conflicts.
• CI's merged ref is only 6 commits behind current main. Those commits are the CA Premium Subsidy changes, the IRS local sales tax worksheet and version bumps; none touches EITC, IL, CO, DC or IN.
• Branch note: merge main and re-run CI to clear the "Package and compatibility" lock failure.
• Sibling Use the current-year federal EITC for Indiana EITC eligibility in 2024 and 2025 #10249 (open) conflicts with this PR in in_eitc.yaml, because both append cases at the end of the file. Whichever merges second should keep both blocks. Use the current-year federal EITC for Indiana EITC eligibility in 2024 and 2025 #10249 also moves in_eitc_eligible off the helper from 2023, which leaves this PR's Indiana effect in the 2011–2022 decoupled branch.
• Sibling Base the Illinois EIC on the federal EITC alone before 2023 and add the 2000–2017 match rates #9824 (open) still merges cleanly with this head. The new farm case is for 2023, so Base the Illinois EIC on the federal EITC alone before 2023 and add the 2000–2017 match rates #9824's pre-2023 IL branch does not affect it.

Verdict: APPROVE

[DTrim99]

Round 2: the axiom line 'us:statutes/26/32/c/2 encoded-correct' is valid (the module floors the TaxUnit total once and cites #1699 for the IL bases), both suggestions are handled (#10448 filed for OK, WA and the NY WFTC reform; the farm and partnership disclosure added), and the new IL farm-loss case hand-checks. The red package check is main-caused (uv.lock revision 3 vs #10377), so merge main and re-run before merging; keep both case blocks when #10249's in_eitc.yaml conflicts. One small suggestion. Full report in the comment above.