WV joint 2025 75page 75sage 10Kswages 22Kintrec 95Kpensions 44Kgssi

[feenberg]

See http://taxsim.nber.org/out2psl/932

Tax before credits matches, credits match, but siitax is off by $2,552.

[PavelMakarchuk]

Reading 2025 Schedule SB Line 16 ("Retirement income subtraction, credits restricted" — Wis. Stat. 71.05(6)(b)54m.a, new for 2025), this filer qualifies: both spouses 67+, $95K of taxable pension income, joint cap $48,000. Claiming Line 16 forfeits all credits (Form 1 lines 13–20, 30–35, Schedule CR).

Comparing the two paths for this record:

• Standard subtractions only → WI taxable $145,141 → tax $6,903 − $300 married couple credit = $6,603
• Line 16 ($48K) + no credits → WI taxable ~$89K → tax ~$4,359

So an optimizing filer would claim Line 16 and save ~$2,244 — which is exactly what PE does (siitax = $4,358.73). TaxAct's PDF leaves Schedule SB Line 16 blank and the TAXSIM-35 binary returns $6,610.56, both matching the "do not claim" path.

Would the right resolution be for TAXSIM-35 to implement the Line 16 optimization (auto-claim when it lowers liability), matching PE's behavior? Or do you intend TAXSIM to model only the line-by-line as-filed result and treat Line 16 as a user-elected choice that isn't auto-applied?

[feenberg]

I can implement this.

…

On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 5:47 PM Pavel Makarchuk ***@***.***> wrote: *PavelMakarchuk* left a comment (PolicyEngine/policyengine-taxsim#932) <#932 (comment)> Reading 2025 Schedule SB Line 16 ("Retirement income subtraction, credits restricted" — Wis. Stat. 71.05(6)(b)54m.a, new for 2025), this filer qualifies: both spouses 67+, $95K of taxable pension income, joint cap $48,000. Claiming Line 16 forfeits all credits (Form 1 lines 13–20, 30–35, Schedule CR). Comparing the two paths for this record: - Standard subtractions only → WI taxable $145,141 → tax $6,903 − $300 married couple credit = *$6,603* - Line 16 ($48K) + no credits → WI taxable ~$89K → tax ~*$4,359* So an optimizing filer would claim Line 16 and save ~$2,244 — which is exactly what PE does (siitax = $4,358.73). TaxAct's PDF leaves Schedule SB Line 16 blank and the TAXSIM-35 binary returns $6,610.56, both matching the "do not claim" path. Would the right resolution be for TAXSIM-35 to implement the Line 16 optimization (auto-claim when it lowers liability), matching PE's behavior? Or do you intend TAXSIM to model only the line-by-line as-filed result and treat Line 16 as a user-elected choice that isn't auto-applied? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#932?email_source=notifications&email_token=AB55AVL7JLNGYUREG4PFQB345CXYLA5CNFSNUABFM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQXTINJWHA3DCNRRGAZKM4TFMFZW63VGMF2XI2DPOKSWK5TFNZ2KYZTPN52GK4S7MNWGSY3L#issuecomment-4568616102>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB55AVLCHENXTPIPH5S2A3T45CXYLAVCNFSM6AAAAACZPS6CNWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHM2DKNRYGYYTMMJQGI> . Triage notifications, keep track of coding agent tasks and review pull requests on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS <https://github.com/notifications/mobile/ios/AB55AVIXRCSO4RM5YXSDRZ345CXYNA5CNFSNUABFM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQXTINJWHA3DCNRRGAZKM4TFMFZW63VGMF2XI2DPOKSWK5TFNZ2KUZTPN52GK4S7NFXXG> and Android <https://github.com/notifications/mobile/android/AB55AVKQZB3G2UE7ZCU6FY345CXYNA5CNFSNUABFM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQXTINJWHA3DCNRRGAZKM4TFMFZW63VGMF2XI2DPOKSWK5TFNZ2K4ZTPN52GK4S7MFXGI4TPNFSA>. Download it today! You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[feenberg]

I made taxsim respect Line 16. I run the calculator twice, and select the lower tax. That seems to work, but of course it doesn't match TA, which is OK. However, I don't understand the PE calculation. I reran with the latest code and I can see taxable income of 148,141, tax before credits of 6902, credits of 300 and siitax of 4358. Shouldn't taxable income include subtractions of gssi and the senior deduction? The taxable income shown seems only to include the subtraction for gssi. The PE output is at:

https://taxsim.nber.org/out2psl/932/932.txt

[PavelMakarchuk]

Great that TAXSIM now does the Line 16 election — that closes the original PE-vs-TAXSIM divergence.

Re your question about PE's taxable income: you're right that the idtl=5 output is inconsistent. PE's WI calc has two parallel paths:

Path	Taxable income	Tax	Credits
Standard path	$145,141 (= AGI $185,894 − SS sub $37,511 − std ded $3,242)	$6,902.73	$300 married couple credit applied
Line 16 (exclusion) path	~$97,141 (Line 16 self-adjusts to subtract $48K from WI income; tax computed on this reduced base)	$4,358.73	$0 (credits forfeited per Schedule SB Line 16 caution)

PE picks min(standard − $300, exclusion) = min($6,602.73, $4,358.73) = $4,358.73 ✓

The PE idtl=5 emits v36 wi_taxable_income = $145,141 because that variable is defined as the standard path taxable income (which always exists). The Line 16 path internally subtracts another $48K to compute tax, but the variable that holds the displayed taxable income doesn't reflect that — the subtraction lives inside wi_retirement_income_exclusion_tax. So you correctly observed taxable income $148K-ish + tax $4,358 don't reconcile at standard rates.

This is essentially a display inconsistency in PE's idtl=5 emit. The final tax IS correct, but the taxable income field doesn't reflect Line 16's $48K reduction.

Could file a PE-taxsim cleanup to make idtl=5 output emit the Line 16-path taxable income when that path is selected (so taxable income, tax, and credits all reconcile). That's cosmetic — the actual computed tax matches the statute.

Re your "senior deduction" question — I don't think there's a state-level senior deduction beyond Line 16 itself. The federal OBBBA $6,000 senior deduction doesn't flow to WI because WI starts from federal AGI (not federal taxable income), so the federal Schedule 1-A items don't appear in WI taxable income. The Line 16 $48K subtraction is WI's own retirement-income mechanism, distinct from the federal senior deduction.