MS income tax difference with TAXSIM35

[martinholmer]

The following integration test fails. It is not yet known whether the
tax logic problem is in TAXSIM35 or in the current PEUS code, or
whether there are problems in both models. This topic is meant to
facilitate discussion of why this test fails, primarily by reporting
the results of hand calculations required to fill out the relevant tax
form.

NOTE: this is the case that prompted issue #4464. The revised 0.759.1 version of PEUS still produces the same results as the older 0.757.0 version.

- name: Tax unit with taxsimid 99272 in k21.its.csv and k21.ots.csv
  absolute_error_margin: 0.01
  period: 2021
  input:
    people:
      person1:
        age: 25
        employment_income: 92010
        qualified_dividend_income: 2005.0
        taxable_interest_income: 5505.0
        short_term_capital_gains: 505.0
        long_term_capital_gains: 505.0
        rental_income: 2505.0
        real_estate_taxes: 16000
        mortgage_interest: 34000
        self_employment_income: 17010
        business_is_qualified: true
        business_is_sstb: true
        w2_wages_from_qualified_business: 100e6
        ssi: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        state_supplement: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        wic: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        ma_covid_19_essential_employee_premium_pay_program: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
      person2:
        age: 25
        employment_income: 16010
        qualified_dividend_income: 2005.0
        taxable_interest_income: 5505.0
        short_term_capital_gains: 505.0
        long_term_capital_gains: 505.0
        rental_income: 2505.0
        ssi: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        state_supplement: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        wic: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        ma_covid_19_essential_employee_premium_pay_program: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
      person3:
        age: 11
        ssi: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        state_supplement: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        wic: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        ma_covid_19_essential_employee_premium_pay_program: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
      person4:
        age: 11
        ssi: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        state_supplement: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        wic: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        ma_covid_19_essential_employee_premium_pay_program: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
      person5:
        age: 11
        ssi: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        state_supplement: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        wic: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        ma_covid_19_essential_employee_premium_pay_program: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
    tax_units:
      tax_unit:
        members: [person1, person2, person3, person4, person5]
        premium_tax_credit: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        local_income_tax: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        state_sales_tax: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        ca_use_tax: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        il_use_tax: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        nm_2021_income_rebate: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        nm_additional_2021_income_rebate: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        nm_supplemental_2021_income_rebate: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        ny_supplemental_eitc: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        ok_use_tax: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        pa_use_tax: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        vt_renter_credit: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
    spm_units:
      spm_unit:
        members: [person1, person2, person3, person4, person5]
        snap: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        tanf: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
    households:
      household:
        members: [person1, person2, person3, person4, person5]
        state_fips: 28  # MS
  output:  # expected results from patched TAXSIM35 2024-04-29 version
    ms_income_tax: 3998.91

[PavelMakarchuk]

@martinholmer could you please share the full TaxSim output for this case?

This is a different issue as the one that was fixed in #4464 -> in this case we assign all itemized deductions ($44,000) to the head of the household which makes sense to me since the income gap is larger than that.

The TaxSIM output would help to further investigate