Adjust the NY Empire State Child Credit to take into account the full ctc amount

[PavelMakarchuk]

Currently we use ctc_value which causes issues with the TAXSIM integration as displayed in the integration test below:

- name: Tax unit with taxsimid 92522 in e21.its.csv and e21.ots.csv
  absolute_error_margin: 0.01
  period: 2021
  input:
    people:
      person1:
        age: 67
        employment_income: 23010
        taxable_interest_income: 5505.0
        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
      person2:
        age: 67
        employment_income: 2010
        taxable_interest_income: 5505.0
        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
      person6:
        age: 16
        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, person6]
        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, person6]
        snap: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
        tanf: 0  # not in TAXSIM35
    households:
      household:
        members: [person1, person2, person3, person4, person5, person6]
        state_fips: 36  # NY
  output:  # expected results from patched TAXSIM35 2024-02-15 version
    ny_income_tax: -680.80

[MaxGhenis]

Can you say more?

[PavelMakarchuk]

Can you say more?

we have added the tax form computation in the discussion #3915 .

As far as we can see, the calculation alludes to the fact that the NY CTC (empire state credit) does allow for a 33% credit of the total possible CTC value and not just the CTC value that is applied

• In this case the federal tax liability is 823$ which limited the CTC (non refundable) to this amount while the total value of the CTC would be $4,000 . TAXSIM takes 33% of 4,000 and does not cap it at $823 and this was the value that we got when we filled out the forms.

Let us know if you think we missed something here

[MaxGhenis]

When would the $100 floor apply then?

Is it possible we're overfitting to 2021, when it was fully refundable? Could we do a similar exercise to #3915 (comment) but with the 2020 or 2022 form?

I understand the NY law ties to 2017 federal law but we might have missed another part of it. Those conformity clauses can be hard to pin down.

[martinholmer]

@PavelMakarchuk, I don't understand where your thinking is on issue #3995.
Do you think the problem here is in PEUS or in TAXSIM35?
What is PR #3996 attempting to do?

[PavelMakarchuk]

@PavelMakarchuk, I don't understand where your thinking is on issue #3995. Do you think the problem here is in PEUS or in TAXSIM35? What is PR #3996 attempting to do?

@martinholmer The PR #3996 was closed for now as I opened it before talking with Dan.
The discussion was whether we should use ctc or ctc_value in the computation of the NY CTC (empire state child credit) - TAXSIM and PE took opposite approaches - I thought the issue has been resolved after Dan made fixes to TAXSIM - does the integration test taxsimid 92522 in e21 pass now? If not I will look deeper into the diff

[martinholmer]

@PavelMakarchuk said in issue #3995:

The PR #3996 was closed for now as I opened it before talking with Dan.
The discussion was whether we should use ctc or ctc_value in the computation of the NY CTC (empire state child credit) - TAXSIM and PE took opposite approaches - I thought the issue has been resolved after Dan made fixes to TAXSIM - does the integration test taxsimid 92522 in e21 pass now? If not I will look deeper into the diff

So, you believe the PEUS code for the Empire State child credit is correct?
If you confirm that you think the code is correct, I will investigate the TAXSIM35 code.

[PavelMakarchuk]

I was confused, PE seems to have the incorrect code, have created #4386 for the fix. @MaxGhenis FYI, PR addresses what we talked with Dan about.

My mistake for the back-and-forth

[MaxGhenis]

But again, taking the full CTC nullifies the $100 floor