OH 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.

- name: Tax unit with taxsimid 94803 in j21.its.csv and j21.ots.csv
  absolute_error_margin: 0.01
  period: 2021
  input:
    people:
      person1:
        age: 48
        employment_income: 152010
        qualified_dividend_income: 4005.0
        taxable_interest_income: 5505.0
        short_term_capital_gains: 3505.0
        long_term_capital_gains: 3005.0
        rental_income: 4005.0
        rent: 17000
        self_employment_income: 160010
        business_is_qualified: true
        business_is_sstb: false
        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: 48
        employment_income: 53010
        qualified_dividend_income: 4005.0
        taxable_interest_income: 5505.0
        short_term_capital_gains: 3505.0
        long_term_capital_gains: 3005.0
        rental_income: 4005.0
        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: 39  # OH
  output:  # expected results from patched TAXSIM35 2024-02-21 version
    oh_income_tax: 13756.36

[PavelMakarchuk]

@martinholmer Thanks for pointing this out, I believe this time it is an issue with PE and TAXSIM
The difference of $31,573,469 in this test occurs in the Ohio AGI computation and is a result of PE including the business income deduction as opposed to TAXSIM.
However, I believe that we need to deduct business income but Ohio creates its own policy parameters. Form.

The law mirrors the cap of 100,000 and 125,000 but not the 3% rate:

[PavelMakarchuk]

Will be fixed in #4056

[martinholmer]

This discussion topic has morphed into issue #4056.