Route pension and Social Security to older spouse in mixed-age households#925
Merged
Conversation
Closes #924. `gssi` is a household-aggregate TAXSIM input with no per-spouse pair field. The previous unconditional 50/50 split pushed half the SS onto the younger spouse in mixed-age households, eliminating per-person state elderly exclusions (CO, MD) on that half. Apply the same age-gated rule already used for pensions: split only when both spouses are 60+, otherwise keep the full amount on the primary filer. For taxsim #924 (CO, primary 75 / spouse 40, $94K gssi), this brings CO subtractions to $80,220 — matching the TaxAct DR 0104AD. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
In mixed-age MFJ couples, route pension and Social Security to the older spouse (matching the original intent in #774) rather than unconditionally to the primary filer. The previous primary-filer rule missed the #774 case (page=54, sage=55) where the qualifying spouse is the secondary filer. Both-60+ still splits 50/50; both-under-60 still defaults to primary. Verified: - #924 CO (primary 75, spouse 40, $94K gssi): SS on primary, co_subtractions = $80,221 vs TaxAct $80,220 ($1 rounding). - #774 IA (primary 54, spouse 55, $262K pension): pension on spouse, ia_income_tax = $0 (full eligible exclusion applied). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
PavelMakarchuk
changed the title
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
3 tasks
PavelMakarchuk
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 28, 2026
Closes #933. Colorado allows a $20K pension subtraction per filer aged 55-64. PR #925 split pension/SS only when both spouses were ≥60, leaving 55-59 mixed-age couples allocating the full pension to one spouse and losing the per-person CO subtraction on the other. Drop the threshold to 55 (the lowest practical state age gate). Higher-threshold states (DE 60, GA 62, MD 65) are unaffected: a 55-59 split doesn't create a false exclusion because those filers fail the higher state age gates anyway. 3K eCPS 2025 sample: identical aggregate match rates (no regression). Per-record: #933 CO joint, page=58/sage=56, $65K pensions now matches TaxAct exactly (siitax $1,224.24 vs prior $2,104.24; $40K subtraction vs prior $20K). Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Context
Issue #774 (closed April 2026) agreed pensions in mixed-age households should go to the older taxpayer. PR #842 implemented age-aware splitting for pensions but routed mixed-age cases to the primary filer (not necessarily the older one). For #774's own case (page=54, sage=55), the implementation still misrouted to the under-eligible 54-year-old primary.
Issue #924 (filed today) demonstrates the same problem for Social Security in CO: primary 75 / spouse 40 with $94K gssi, the 50/50 split sent $47K to the under-60 spouse and lost half the CO age-based subtraction ($40,110 gap in CO taxable income).
This PR:
_AGE_GATED_FIELDS = {taxable_private_pension_income, social_security_retirement}).Verified end-to-end
Test plan