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>
- Property tax relief (R.I. Gen. Laws 44-33-3): the claimant is a filer aged 65 or older or disabled who is not claimed as a dependent; household members choose the claimant, so either spouse qualifies, but the age or disability and the dependency test belong to the same person. - 2021-return child rebate (44-30-103(b)(1)): only children the taxpayer "validly claims as a dependent", and a return with a claimable filer has none (IRC 152(b)(1)). The exemptions, EITC and care credit already follow the federal fixes. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…ndent The dependent exemption (S.C. Code 12-6-1140(13): dependents must meet IRC 151 and 152) and the under-six deduction (12-6-1160) are zero on a return where the filer, or either joint spouse, can be claimed (IRC 152(b)(1)). The EITC and care credit already follow the federal fixes. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The taxpayer credit's qualifying dependents (Utah Code 59-10-1018(1)(c): those for whom the claimant is allowed an IRC 24 credit), its birth-year additional dependent and the at-home parent credit's qualifying child (59-10-1005) are zero on a return where the filer, or either joint spouse, can be claimed (IRC 152(b)(1)). The child tax credit and EITC already follow the federal fixes. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Personal exemptions (32 V.S.A. 5811(21)(C)): no dependents on a return where the filer, or either joint spouse, can be claimed (IRC 152(b)(1)); the own and spouse exemptions already excluded a claimable filer. - Child tax credit (5830f): requires federal child tax credit entitlement for an IRC 152(c) qualifying child; the identification-number waiver does not reach 152(b)(1), so a return with a claimable filer gets none, and a young member who is not a dependent no longer counts. - Renter credit (6066): the claimant may not be claimed as a dependent, but an unclaimed spouse can be the claimant; fair market rent is for a number of bedrooms equal to the personal exemptions (6066(b)(2)). - Student loan interest (5811(21)(B)(vi), (29); IN-112 line 16): from 2022 Vermont subtracts the qualified interest paid less the federal deduction, for AGI up to $200,000 joint or $120,000 otherwise. The model subtracted the raw interest from 2021, deducting it twice for filers who took the federal deduction; a claimed filer, who gets no federal deduction (IRC 221(c)), now subtracts the whole amount. The EITC and care credit already follow the federal fixes. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…dent - Personal exemptions (W. Va. Code 11-21-16): $2,000 per exemption a filer may claim (none for a claimable filer, no dependents on a return where either joint spouse can be claimed), and a single $500 when the return has none (IT-140: "If box e is zero, enter $500"). The model counted every member. - Low-income family credit (11-21-22a): family size is the number of exemptions that may be legally claimed, and a return with zero exemptions cannot claim the credit. The care credit already follows the federal fix. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Standard deduction (Wis. Stat. 71.05(22)(f)): when the filer, or either joint spouse, can be claimed, the lesser of the ordinary deduction and the greater of $1,350 or earned income plus $450 (2025; indexed as the federal amounts), on both the regular and the retirement-exclusion paths. - $250 exemption (Form 1 line 10b): only for a filer aged 65 or older who is allowed the $700 exemption, so each spouse is tested separately. - Homestead credit (71.53; Schedule H): the claimant is the spouse who is 18 or older, has earned income or is 62 or older or disabled, and is not claimed as a dependent unless 62 or older; the $500 household-income deduction counts no dependents on a return with a claimable filer. The $700 exemption and care credits already follow the federal fixes. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Swap invariance, monotonicity and identities (dependent-based amounts are zero on a return with a claimable filer; a return whose every filer is claimed gets no RI relief or VT renter credit and West Virginia's single $500 exemption), plus the changelog fragment. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Utah Code 59-10-1005(2) allows $100 "for each qualifying child if ... the claimant or another claimant filing a joint individual income tax return with the claimant is an at-home parent". The model multiplied the credit by the number of spouses earning $3,000 or less, doubling it for such couples; the existing two-parent test asserted $400 for two children and now expects $200. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
32 V.S.A. 5830f(b) reduces "the amount of the credit per child" by $20 for each $1,000 of AGI over $125,000; the model reduced the total once, so a family with two young children at $150,000 got $1,500 instead of $1,000. The existing phase-out and age cases used the filer as the child; they now have a parent and a child, since 5830f counts IRC 152(c) qualifying children. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…nt exemption reform When in effect, the contributed reform recounts is_tax_unit_dependent itself; it now applies the same IRC 152(b)(1) gate as the baseline ut_total_dependents, as the federal branch did for the HI, WI and Treasury reforms. 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>
|
Note from the US + core hub for this PR's owner (2026-10-10). #10024 now has an approved head,
A reviewer of the Two related points from the same branch:
|
- 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 helper summed wages, business income and disability wages itself, so it missed farm income and never subtracted the deductible part of self-employment tax. standard_deduction_worksheet_earned_income already applies those, the head/spouse filter, joint netting and the zero floor. Adds the 2025 farm-income case (9,743.52). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
A child on a return whose filer can be claimed adds no exemption under IRC 152(b)(1), so it should not switch off the per-filer amounts. The baseline and contributed reform now test exemptions_count minus own exemptions instead of tax_unit_dependents; the repeal override, whose ordinary amount counts only own exemptions, applies whenever a filer is claimable. Updates the one-claimable-plus-child cases to 2,500 and the both-claimable-plus-children cases to 1,000, adds baseline and repeal cases, and widens the invariant identity to match. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Ready for hub review Head: Commits this round: Items
Expectations that moved (before → after)
Added:
Unchanged:
WV parity witnesses after this changeThese come from a Simulation probe at this head (2025, $8,000 wages each on joint returns). They match the YAML.
Hand computations
Tests (one file per process, local Linux VM)
MutantsEach ran in its own process, and the file was restored with
CIPull request run 41855545317 was still in progress at hand-off, about 60 minutes after the push, so it has no conclusion yet.
Judgment calls
Proposed follow-up
Generated by Claude Code |
|
Hub review in progress Round 6 delta review of Findings so far:
Generated by Claude Code |
|
Ready for hub review This is a round-6 delta review of
All three round-5 blockers are fixed, CI is green, and every mutant the hand-off lists is killed. I found no P1 or P2. The methodology choices are unchanged from round 5:
P3P3-a. The Publication 907 reference is still undated. The hand-off reports that the session couldn't reach irs.gov, and this VM couldn't either (proxy 403). The hub read Publication 907 (2025), PDF page 3: "You must report your taxable disability payments as wages on line 1h of Form 1040 or 1040-SR until you reach minimum retirement age." I couldn't fetch that page myself, so this rests on the hub's reading. Replace "https://www.irs.gov/publications/p907",with "https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p907--2025.pdf#page=3",This doesn't block landing. P3-b. No test pins that a dependent's own earnings stay out of WI's cap (surviving mutant M7). The head is correct:
The result does change. A Simulation probe (2025: a claimable filer aged 22 with $20,000 of interest, plus a 16-year-old dependent earning $5,000 in wages) gives - name: Wisconsin leaves a dependent's own wages out of a claimable filer's earned income
period: 2025
input:
people:
filer:
age: 22
taxable_interest_income: 20_000
claimable_as_dependent_on_another_return: true
child:
age: 16
employment_income: 5_000
tax_units:
tax_unit:
members: [filer, child]
households:
household:
members: [filer, child]
state_code: WI
output:
standard_deduction_worksheet_earned_income: 0
# The child's wages belong on the child's own return.
# Dependent limit: max(1,350, 0 + 450) = 1,350.
wi_standard_deduction: 1_350P3-c. The body's CI paragraph is stale, and the
The Checked and soundCI. Pull request run 41855545317 at
The RI split (P1-a).
WI cap (P2-a). I computed the hand values from the parameter tree before reading the cases. The 2025 values are:
The farm case works out as follows:
The disability row is min(12,306, max(1,350, 10,450)) = 10,450, and it still passes. I read Simulation probes (2025, a claimable single filer aged 22 with $20,000 of interest):
So the round-5 farm and SE defects reproduce at WV gate (P2-b). The contributed reform's The repeal's ordinary amount counts only Hand values with $2,000 and $500 (both constant from 2021 through 2026 in the parameter tree):
All six moved expectations and both new cases ( Joint-return Simulation probes (2025, $8,000 wages each), giving
The hand-off's parity table. Every row matches either these probes or a passing case in The widened identity ( LIFTC. The fixture file is untouched this round and passes. Its arithmetic checks out: 16,000 − 2,500 = 13,500; 10,000 × 2.22% + 3,500 × 2.96% = 325.60; 80% of that is 260.48. Tests at head, one file per process (local Linux VM):
Mutants. Each ran in its own process on a scratch worktree that imports its own copy of the package. Each was restored afterwards, and
Readers.
Against the round-5 head, this round's changes only raise the WV exemption and only raise or lower the WI cap toward the worksheet value, in the same direction on each path. I found no reader made worse. Baseline movement. Yes, this round moves baseline outputs.
The population check is the count and weight of:
Scope.
Body. Checked against the code:
All hold, except the CI paragraph (P3-c). Overlaps.
What I couldn't check
Generated by Claude Code |
|
Picking this up for the US hub. I'll post a hand-off comment here when it's ready. Generated by Claude Code |
…ages Cite the 2025 Publication 907 PDF at the page that treats disability payments before minimum retirement age as wages, rather than the undated web page. Add a case where a claimable filer's dependent child earns wages: the child's earnings belong on the child's own return, so the dependent limit stays at 1,350. Without it, a helper that summed every member's earned income would pass both WI files while giving 5,450. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LwQq6HWtPqg7fKcLTqL3ef
|
Ready for hub review Head: Built on Items
MutantM7:
CIPull request run 41944409704 at Judgment calls
Generated by Claude Code |
PR Review: Apply the RI, SC, UT, VT, WV and WI rules for a filer who can be claimed as a dependentSummaryI read each state's statute and the claimed years' forms first, then the code. The PR uses only existing dependency variables, and no variable is reinvented:
Most changed gates match the governing text for the claimed years:
CI is 36/36 green at the head. The branch conflicts with current main in one test file. Two critical items and six should items are open:
Critical (must fix)C1. Wisconsin $250 additional exemption: the new claimability bar follows the instructions, not 71.05(23)(b)3 (
C2. West Virginia family tax credit: family size drops the 11-21-16(d) exemption, and zero-exemption returns are barred, against 11-21-22a(b) (
Should addressS1. Two CONTRIBUTING.md#source-conflicts, step 1: "If the backlog already lists the conflict, it updates that item instead." Neither item is touched by the PR.
S2. Three readings the PR takes are not recorded
S3. The
S4. Rhode Island's new
S5. Utah: the rewritten
S6. A reference title doesn't follow the CLAUDE.md format (
Suggestions
Verified correctThe law, read first.
The code.
Axiom line assessmentThe line lists six queued issues:
CI status
Branch status
Verdict: REQUEST_CHANGES |
DTrim99
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Requesting changes per the review above: 2 critical (WI age-65 $250 exemption barred for claimable filers against 71.05(23)(b)3; WV family tax credit family size drops the 11-21-16(d) exemption and bars zero-exemption returns against 11-21-22a(b) — both turn main's correct results wrong), 6 should, 6 suggestions.
vt_renter_credit had no renter test, so it gave every low-income Vermont tax unit a credit based on fair market rent, homeowners included. Only the TAXSIM comparison read the amount until this branch counted the credit in benefits. The AABD integration case then showed the result: $1,324 more in household_state_benefits for a person who pays no rent. 32 V.S.A. 6066(b)(1) gives the credit to "an eligible claimant who rented the homestead", and 6066(c)(3) requires at least six calendar months of renting. vt_renter_credit_eligible applies the rent test. PE-US has no months-rented input, so rent paid stands in for the six-month test. PE-US #10044 adds the 6066(c)(2) dependent bar with its joint-return reading, so this commit leaves that bar to it. The YAML cases and department-table tests set rent to 0 while checking the credit amount. They now set rent, and new cases and properties cover a tax unit that pays no rent and a tenant whose subsidy covers all the rent. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
vt_renter_credit had no renter test, so it gave every low-income Vermont tax unit a credit based on fair market rent, homeowners included. Only the TAXSIM comparison read the amount until this branch counted the credit in benefits. The AABD integration case then showed the result: $1,324 more in household_state_benefits for a person who pays no rent. 32 V.S.A. 6066(b)(1) gives the credit to "an eligible claimant who rented the homestead", and 6066(c)(3) requires at least six calendar months of renting. vt_renter_credit_eligible applies the rent test. PE-US has no months-rented input, so rent paid stands in for the six-month test. PE-US #10044 adds the 6066(c)(2) dependent bar with its joint-return reading, so this commit leaves that bar to it. The YAML cases and department-table tests set rent to 0 while checking the credit amount. They now set rent, and new cases and properties cover a tax unit that pays no rent and a tenant whose subsidy covers all the rent. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
#10725 adds a rent test ( |
|
Picking this up for the US hub. I'll post a hand-off comment here when it's ready. Generated by Claude Code |
GitHub reported the branch as conflicting with main. Both conflicts keep both sides: - repeal_state_dependent_exemptions.yaml: main's three California repeal cases from #10053 follow this branch's WV, WI and RI cases. - vt_renter_credit.py: main's #10725 added the rent test, the household size cap and safe_county. The fair market rent now indexes on this branch's exemption count and main's safe_county, while the income limits keep main's capped size. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Wis. Stat. 71.05(23)(b)3 allows $250 for a taxpayer, and for a spouse, who has reached age 65, with no other condition. The Form 1 instructions also require the line 10a $700 exemption, which they deny to a filer who can be claimed. Under the statute-first rule the statute governs, so the claimability bar goes and each aged filer counts again, as on main. The claimable cases now expect 250 per aged filer, and the retiree on the positive retirement-exclusion path owes $185.50 instead of $194.25. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…size W. Va. Code 11-21-22a(b) sets family size to "the total number of exemptions that may be legally claimed", leaving out only the 16(c) surviving spouse exemption. 16(d) calls the claimable filer's $500 "a single West Virginia exemption", so it counts. Nothing in 22a bars a return the IT-140 treats as having zero exemptions, so that bar goes. A new wv_claimable_filer_exemptions_count holds the number of 16(d) exemptions on a return whose dependents add none. The baseline exemption, the contributed reform and the family size now share it, so the three cannot drift apart. The repeal keeps its own count, since it repeals the dependent exemptions. The zero-exemption $500 fallback stays in both exemption formulas. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…ents Utah Code 59-10-1018(1)(c) defines a qualifying dependent as one "with respect to whom the claimant is allowed to claim a tax credit under Section 24". The rewritten count applied only IRC 152(b)(1), so a dependent with no child or other-dependent credit still counted. ut_qualifying_dependent now tests ctc_individual_maximum > 0, which keeps the federal identification rules and the 152(b)(1) gate with its filing exception. The total, the birth-year unit and the contributed reform all read it. New cases pin a child with no SSN and no TIN (no credit, so $0), a child with an ITIN (the $500 credit for other dependents, so $2,111), and the filing exception for the newborn unit and the reform. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
44-33-3(1) excludes "any person claimed as a dependent by any taxpayer" from the claimant, and a dependent of the return is claimed by it. No case had an aged or disabled dependent, so deleting the filer term failed no test. A 40-year-old filer with a 70-year-old dependent parent now expects no claimant. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
CLAUDE.md asks that a multi-page reference title end with "#page 9-10" and be quoted, with the href opening the first page. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Two items named this PR but described main. The Vermont zero-exemption rent item now lists vt_renter_credit.py and fair_market_rent.yaml, and the West Virginia $500 item now follows the statute in every year since 1987 and lists the baseline, reform and repeal files. The statewide-average item now covers the 2021-2025 zero-bedroom rows. New open items record the Wisconsin $250 and $700 exemptions, Wisconsin's earned-income measure, the West Virginia family size and allocation questions, Rhode Island's same-person claimant, and Vermont's income-limit household size. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The fragment no longer lists the Wisconsin $250 exemption, which keeps main's age-only test. It now names the West Virginia family size change and the Utah qualifying-dependent test, and splits long sentences. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Ready for hub review Head: Built on 1. Main
2. FindingsI reproduced each finding before changing code. Every statute quoted below I read in this session. C1, Wisconsin $250 age-65 exemption: FIXED (
C2, West Virginia family tax credit: FIXED (
S1, stale candidates: FIXED (
S2, unrecorded readings: FIXED as three new items, all
S3, axiom issues: DRAFTED below; I didn't edit any issue. The body's S4, Rhode Island S5, Utah IRC 24 condition: FIXED, with a different witness.
S6, reference title: FIXED ( Suggestions.
3. Rulings for the hubEach call applies CONTRIBUTING.md#source-conflicts and has a
4. Axiom lineThe body's S3 drafts for the hub to file on rulespec-usI can't read rulespec-us from this session, so these drafts rest on the review's description of each issue. Each re-pins to #1807 (RI) comment:
#1808 (SC) comment:
#1809 (UT) comment:
#1810 (VT) comment:
#1811 (WV) comment, replacing required outputs 2 and 3 and their companions (this folds in the correction the hub owes on the gate):
#1812 (WI) comment, replacing the earned-income measure, its companions and the $250 output:
5. MutantsEach mutant ran in its own process, one test file per process, with the file restored afterwards (
No mutant was needed for S6 (a reference title) or the candidate records; 6. Tests and CILocal runs at
CI. Pull request run 42651314431 at 7. BodyEvery section now describes the final head. That covers the summary and state table (UT IRC 24 test, WV family size, WI $250), a Readings row per candidate id and the merge. It also covers this round's local runs, the CI timing for Suggestion 5 and the CI run. I replaced the internal decision ids in the old "remain as built" line with a description. The body had no 8. Judgment calls
9. Follow-up issues I'd propose
DISMISSAL MAP
Generated by Claude Code |
source_conflicts/candidates.yaml (resolved by hand): both sides added backlog items at the same two places. The result keeps every item from both sides once, in id order: main's us-wa:pte-veteran-pathway-pre-2016 before this branch's us-wi:age-65-exemption-claimable-filer, and this branch's us-wi:dependent-standard-deduction-earned-income before main's us-wi:homestead-age-disability-earned-income-routes. ut_at_home_parent_credit_potential.py merged without a conflict, and the result keeps both changes. This branch counts a qualifying child only when the return can claim dependents (IRC 152(b)(1)); main pays the $100 once for each child, however many spouses are at-home parents (Utah Code 59-10-1005(2)). Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Summary
Apply RI/SC/UT/VT/WV/WI claimable-filer rules symmetrically between head and spouse. Preserve claimability versus actual-claim gates and the Dependent Taxpayer Test (DTT), including #10024/#10087's filing exception.
Preserve gates in RI/SC/UT/VT/WV contributed reforms and RI/WI/WV repeal overrides. Wisconsin's deduction paths share the federal dependent worksheet's earned income; Vermont uses 2021–2025 HUD efficiency rents for zero exemptions. West Virginia allows $500 per claimable filer on a return whose dependents add no exemption, and counts that exemption in the family tax credit's family size.
A shared helper,
wv_claimable_filer_exemptions_count, holds that count for the baseline exemption, the contributed reform and the family size. The repeal override counts every claimable filer, since it repeals the dependent exemptions. Returns whose dependents add exemptions keep the IT-140 count, pending a ruling.ut_qualifying_dependenttestsctc_individual_maximum > 0, which keeps the DTT and filing exception; the total, birth-year unit and reform read it. At-home credit requires claimed dependents under 59-10-1005.#10104 separately fixes VT student-loan interest/CTC per-child phase-out, UT at-home parent multiplier and WI homestead claimant conditions. HI/VA repeal remains a separate follow-up: preserve baseline own/aged gates (claimable-single repeal wrongly restores $1,144/$930).
Readings
A reading with an id in brackets is recorded in
source_conflicts/candidates.yamlunder that id.us-wv:zero-exemption-return-500-allowance]us-wv:claimable-filer-exemption-with-dependents, open]us-wv:family-tax-credit-claimable-filer-family-size, open]us-wi:age-65-exemption-claimable-filer, open]us-wi:personal-exemption-claimable-filer, open]wi_base_exemptionfollows line 10a's claimability rule through the federalexemptions_count.us-wi:dependent-standard-deduction-earned-income, open]standard_deduction_worksheet_earned_income) on both deduction paths, pending a ruling. 71.05(22)(f)3m uses earned income "as defined in section 911 (d) (2)", which caps a capital-intensive business at 30 percent of net profits. Witnesses (2025, claimable single, age 22, $20,000 interest): $10,000 of disability wages gives $10,450; $10,000 of farm income gives $9,743.52 (at most $3,450 under 911(d)(2) if capital is material). A dependent child's own $5,000 of wages leaves the filer's deduction at $1,350.us-ri:property-tax-relief-claimant-same-person, open]us-vt:renter-credit-income-limit-household-size, open]us-vt:renter-credit-zero-exemption-rent, ruled]us-vt:renter-credit-statewide-average-fmr]Three earlier hub rulings remain as built: NIIT/QBI/HSA/education; HI/NY/MA/KS; NM medical/WV senior-disability. The last one's WV 11-21-12(c)(9) income-base choice is distinct from this exemption fix.
Not modeled (listed, not implemented)
Other findings (not fixed here)
vt_renter_credit, so a unit must pay rent. The model has no months-rented input, so it can't apply 6066(c)(3)'s six-month minimum or the department's proration for part-year renters.Invariants and test scope
Five property tests check head/spouse swaps, claimability monotonicity and statutory identities in 2021/2023/2025/2026 populations including pension/IRA income. For WV returns with no lawful dependent exemptions (childless, or whose children add none), the exemption identity is $2,000 per nonclaimable filer plus $500 per claimable filer. YAML pins WV witnesses and baseline/reform/repeal, ordinary-dependent and filing-exception controls. Nobody-claimable controls use YAML, without property-test base comparisons. Model-construction counts stay fixed.
In CI run 41944409704, the property file ran in Rest Python shard 4 (
rest-python-core-2). Its five tests took 27.1 s of the shard's 1,179.3 s of test time. The shard's process took 20:34 of wall time and 6.44 GiB of peak RSS for all 32 files, so the file's own memory isn't separable there. Locally (Linux VM, not CI) the file alone took 123.2 s with imports and 2,252 MB of peak RSS.Validation and merge
Head:
586e460dd1c87bd817b2fcde4ee53afad0f802fc. The PR is ready for review (not a draft).Merge commit
3db73a90b8importsorigin/mainatba9bfdea75with a merge commit; no rebase or history rewrite was performed. It resolves two conflicts and keeps both sides.repeal_state_dependent_exemptions.yamlkeeps this PR's WV/WI/RI cases and main's three California cases from #10053.vt_renter_credit.pykeeps main's #10725 rent test, size cap andsafe_county, and indexes the fair market rent by exemptions andsafe_county.The 16 claimable-filer RI reform pairs live in
policy/contrib/states/ri/exemption_reform_claimable_filer_test.yaml, soexemption_reform_test.yamlkeeps its 4 original cases and stays within the reform-combo budget.Local runs, one file per process (Linux VM, not CI), at this head:
policy/baseline/gov/states/wi/tax/income/wi_additional_exemption.yamlpolicy/baseline/gov/states/wi/tax/income/wi_retirement_income_exclusion_tax.yamlpolicy/baseline/gov/states/wi/tax/income/wi_exemption.yamlpolicy/baseline/gov/states/wv/tax/income/credits/liftc/wv_low_income_family_tax_credit_eligible.yamlpolicy/baseline/gov/states/wv/tax/income/credits/liftc/wv_low_income_family_tax_credit.yamlpolicy/baseline/gov/states/wv/tax/income/credits/liftc/wv_low_income_family_tax_credit_fpg.yamlpolicy/baseline/gov/states/wv/tax/income/credits/liftc/integration.yamlpolicy/baseline/gov/states/wv/tax/income/exemptions/wv_personal_exemption.yamlpolicy/baseline/gov/states/wv/tax/income/wv_taxable_income.yamlpolicy/contrib/states/wv/dependent_exemption_reform_test.yamlpolicy/contrib/state_dependent_exemptions/repeal_state_dependent_exemptions.yamlpolicy/baseline/gov/states/ut/tax/income/credits/ut_total_dependents.yamlpolicy/baseline/gov/states/ut/tax/income/credits/ut_personal_exemption_additional_dependent_eligible.yamlpolicy/baseline/gov/states/ut/tax/income/credits/ut_personal_exemption.yamlpolicy/baseline/gov/states/ut/tax/income/credits/ut_taxpayer_credit.yamlpolicy/contrib/states/ut/dependent_exemption/ut_dependent_exemption.yamlpolicy/baseline/gov/states/ri/tax/income/credits/property_tax/ri_property_tax_credit_eligible.yamlpolicy/baseline/gov/states/vt/tax/income/credits/rent/vt_renter_credit.yamlcore/test_claimable_filer_ri_sc_ut_vt_wv_wi_invariants.pycode_health/test_source_conflicts.pycode_health/test_reference_urls.pycode_health/test_no_concatenated_reference_urls.pycode_health/test_known_dead_reference_urls.pycode_health/test_no_group_variables_in_person_adds.pycode_health/test_parameter_yaml_keys.pyruff format --checkandruff checkpass on the changed Python files. No directory suite or microsimulation was run locally.Pull request run 42651314431 at
586e460dd1: at hand-off, 35 of 36 jobs had passed and none was skipped or cancelled. Contrib other-shard-1 was still running.impact: pending a comparison at the final head.
axiom: TheAxiomFoundation/rulespec-us#1807 queued (RI: 44-33-3, 44-30-103) | TheAxiomFoundation/rulespec-us#1808 queued (SC: 12-6-1140(13), 12-6-1160) | TheAxiomFoundation/rulespec-us#1809 queued (UT: 59-10-1018, 59-10-1005 lawful dependents) | TheAxiomFoundation/rulespec-us#1810 queued (VT: 5811(21)(C), 5830f, 6066 claimant/FMR) | TheAxiomFoundation/rulespec-us#1811 queued (WV: 11-21-16, 11-21-22a) | TheAxiomFoundation/rulespec-us#1812 queued (WI: 71.05(22)(f), age-65 $250, lawful care/homestead counts)
🤖 Generated with Claude Code