-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 158
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Modify pass-through exclusion calculation #1819
Modify pass-through exclusion calculation #1819
Conversation
@codykallen, thanks for PR #1819. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1819 +/- ##
======================================
Coverage 100% 100%
======================================
Files 37 37
Lines 3061 3058 -3
======================================
- Hits 3061 3058 -3
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
@codykallen, one thing would help. I know the tests are telling you to update the The problem with the test now is that if you follow its directions (which you did) then, immediately after this pull request is merged, the documentation will be updated even though there is no taxcalc package available with the new PT limitation parameters. The way to "fix" this for now is on your
Sorry about the hassle. Now I'll start my review of #1819. |
@martinholmer, I just ran the two commands you suggested, and they don't appear to have done anything. Do you have a different suggestion? |
@codykallen said:
Right. I forgot you've already committed the new |
@codykallen, Everything in #1819 so far looks good to me. BUT you said in issue #1816 this:
Do you want to include this enhancement in pull request #1819? Does this enhancement require any new policy parameters or is it just a change in logic that uses existing policy parameters? |
@martinholmer, this enhancement would require a one new policy parameter, as well as changing the |
@codykallen said:
Yes, that would be great! Just add one or more commits to your |
@martinholmer, this adds the parameter an an above-the-line deduction cap. |
@codykallen, Thanks for adding commit 75d1439 that represents the business loss limitation policy parameter and logic under TCJA. It all looks good except for one thing. If TCJA limits business losses in the following code:
and There is an easy way to fix this, I think. We already have a variable called Does this make sense? |
@martinholmer, I believe this should be ready to go now. |
@codykallen, thanks for commit 9f4cd03, but there seems to be one thing missing. |
@codykallen, Thanks for all the help on these TCJA enhancements! |
This PR modifies the calculation of the business income exclusion for the TCJA. This renames two parameters:
PT_exclusion_rt
becomesPT_excl_rt
, andPT_exclusion_wage_limit
becomesPT_excl_wagelim_rt
. This PR also adds two parameters,PT_excl_wagelim_thd
andPT_excl_wagelim_prt
, which are used to correctly implement the rules for the wage limitation on the business income exclusion in the final version of the TCJA. This PR also changes the names of the parameters in the TCJA json files and adds the two new parameters to theTCJA_Reconciliation.json
(although I did not correct the TCJA Senate versions).The default values for the two new parameters are set to maintain backward compatibility, both with pre-TCJA law and with the TCJA Senate json files.
This PR fulfills the suggestions in #1816.