# Validation scenarios for the PolicyEngine oracle comparison. # # Each scenario is run through both Retirement Figures and PolicyEngine US # and the outputs are diffed. See README.md for tolerance philosophy. # # Schema: # name: human-readable scenario label # year: tax year (int) # state: two-letter state code # filing_status: 'mfj' or 'single' # default_tolerance: default $ slack on each output diff # tolerances: per-variable overrides (PE variable name) # people: list of person dicts # age, wages, self_employment, pension, ira_distributions, # roth_conversion, social_security_gross, long_term_capital_gains, # short_term_capital_gains, qualified_dividends, ordinary_dividends, # taxable_interest (all optional; default 0) scenarios: - name: '01 - Single, no SS, simple IRA withdrawal (TX)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: single default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 # TX has no state income tax people: - {age: 55, ira_distributions: 50000} - name: '02 - MFJ, no SS, simple IRA withdrawal (TX)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: - {age: 60, ira_distributions: 80000} - {age: 58} - name: '03 - MFJ, SS + pension (OH)' year: 2026 state: OH filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 25 # Ohio low brackets + retirement credit people: - {age: 67, social_security_gross: 30000, pension: 40000} - {age: 65, social_security_gross: 20000} - name: '04 - MFJ, SS + Roth conversion crossing SS phase-in (OH)' year: 2026 state: OH filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 25 people: - {age: 67, wages: 40000, social_security_gross: 60000, roth_conversion: 30000} - {age: 62} - name: '05 - SS taxation 50% threshold edge (single)' year: 2026 state: FL filing_status: single default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # Provisional = 24500 + 0.5*15000 = 32000 -> just past low tier (25000) # taxable SS = 0.5 * (32000 - 25000) = 3500, capped at SS*0.5 - {age: 67, wages: 24500, social_security_gross: 15000} - name: '06 - LTCG + QD straddling 0%->15% threshold (MFJ)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: - {age: 55, wages: 60000, long_term_capital_gains: 40000, qualified_dividends: 5000} - {age: 55} - name: '07 - Ohio resident, working-age (OH)' year: 2026 state: OH filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 25 people: - {age: 50, wages: 120000} - {age: 48, wages: 50000} - name: '08 - No income tax state baseline (NV)' year: 2026 state: NV filing_status: single default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 # NV has no state income tax people: - {age: 45, wages: 100000} - name: '09 - High-tax state (CA)' year: 2026 state: CA filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 100 # CA progressive brackets; first PE/RF audit people: - {age: 50, wages: 200000} - {age: 48, wages: 100000} - name: '10 - Large Roth conversion into 32% bracket (MFJ)' year: 2026 state: OH filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 25 people: - {age: 60, pension: 50000, roth_conversion: 300000} - {age: 60} - name: '11 - Two seniors MFJ, MAGI in enhanced-senior phase-out window' year: 2026 state: OH filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 25 people: # baseMagi ~$170k -- inside the $150k-$250k phase-out window for # both seniors. Pins the per-person 6c phase-out semantics. - {age: 67, pension: 50000, ira_distributions: 80000, social_security_gross: 30000} - {age: 65, pension: 30000, social_security_gross: 20000} - name: '12 - Single 67 standard deduction edge (no SS)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: single default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # Income just above single std-ded ($16,100) + age-65 add ($2,050) # + OBBB senior ($6,000) = $24,150. Tests the deduction stack at # the edge. - {age: 67, pension: 25000} # --------------------------------------------------------------------- # Round-2 scenarios (added 2026-06-05 - corner cases that historically # produced engine bugs, including the MFJ-62/67-Ohio SS-torpedo case # that drove the simulateConversion fix earlier this session) # --------------------------------------------------------------------- - name: '13 - MFJ 62/67 Ohio Roth conversion (SS-torpedo regression)' year: 2026 state: OH filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 50 people: # The exact scenario the user reported when the standalone Roth # calculator showed wrong newMagi for a $30k conversion. PE # oracle pins: taxable SS at $51,000 cap, AGI $121,000 post- # conversion. If RF ever regresses on the SS-torpedo math this # scenario will flag it loudly. - {age: 67, wages: 40000, social_security_gross: 60000, roth_conversion: 30000} - {age: 62} - name: '14 - NIIT trigger edge (MFJ, high MAGI, cap gains)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # Wages $200k + LTCG $80k -> AGI $280k -> $30k over the $250k MFJ # NIIT threshold. NIIT = 3.8% × min(NII=$80k, MAGI-threshold=$30k) # = 3.8% × $30k = $1,140 of federal tax surcharge. # Tests both engines' NIIT pathway at a clean threshold-crossing. - {age: 55, wages: 200000, long_term_capital_gains: 80000} - {age: 55} - name: '15 - Pennsylvania (fully exempts IRA/pension)' year: 2026 state: PA filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 50 people: # PA does not tax qualified retirement distributions for taxpayers # 59.5+. Expected PA state tax: 0 (or very small if any income is # treated as PA-taxable). Tests RF's retirement_income_exempt # path against PE's PA implementation. - {age: 67, pension: 40000, ira_distributions: 30000, social_security_gross: 30000} - {age: 65, pension: 20000, social_security_gross: 20000} - name: '16 - Mississippi (Roth conversion taxable per audit)' year: 2026 state: MS filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 50 people: # MS exempts qualified retirement distributions but NOT Roth # conversions (per the June 2026 state-tax audit). Tests the # include_roth_conversion=False handling in RF. - {age: 67, pension: 30000, roth_conversion: 50000} - {age: 65} - name: '17 - Iowa (age-55 retirement exemption gate)' year: 2026 state: IA filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 50 people: # IA exempts retirement income for filers 55+. This scenario has # the primary at 60 (eligible) - exemption should apply. - {age: 60, pension: 50000, ira_distributions: 20000} - {age: 58} - name: '18 - North Carolina retirement scenario' year: 2026 state: NC filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 # Tolerance bumped to $75 after the NC std-ded inflation opt-out # fix (2026-06-05); remaining ~$56 is a rate-basis disagreement # between RF (3.99% statutory) and PE (effective ~4.22%). Small # enough to leave; verify NC's published TY2026 rate when it's out. tolerances: state_income_tax: 75 people: # NC: 4.25% flat (2025) -> 3.99% (2026). Taxes retirement income # at the flat rate. Tests the basic flat-rate path. - {age: 67, pension: 50000, social_security_gross: 30000} - {age: 65, social_security_gross: 20000} - name: '19 - IRMAA tier crossing (MFJ MAGI just past $342k)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # MAGI exactly above the $342k MFJ tier3 threshold. Tests that # both engines agree on AGI/MAGI when ordinary income is the # entire base (no SS feedback). The harness doesn't compare # IRMAA surcharges (PE's IRMAA is partial - see PE issue #8587 # and the open IRMAA issues #8529/8095/8089/7967), but the # MAGI value should match exactly so the planner's IRMAA cap # logic has the right base. - {age: 67, wages: 0, pension: 0, ira_distributions: 343000} - {age: 65} # --------------------------------------------------------------------- # Round-3 scenarios (added 2026-06-05) - state diversity + corner cases. # Eight new states (IL, MA, NY, GA, CT, MN, MI, MD) plus three tax # phenomena not yet exercised: LTCG-dominant retirement, mandatory RMD # at age 73+, mixed LTCG+QD straddling the 0%->15% threshold. # State-tax tolerances are generous ($75) because RF and PE diverge on # many state implementations; the federal lines should still match # exactly. # --------------------------------------------------------------------- - name: '20 - Illinois retiree (fully exempts retirement income)' year: 2026 state: IL filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 75 people: # IL fully exempts qualified retirement distributions at ANY age # (no age gate, unlike PA's 59.5). Expected IL tax: $0. # Tests retirement_income_exempt_states['Illinois'] in RF. - {age: 68, pension: 45000, ira_distributions: 25000, social_security_gross: 30000} - {age: 66, pension: 20000, social_security_gross: 20000} - name: '21 - Massachusetts flat 5% retiree' year: 2026 state: MA filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 75 people: # MA flat 5%, no general retirement exclusion (some government # pensions excluded; ordinary 401k/IRA / private pensions are # taxable). MA fully exempts SS. Tests the simple flat-rate # path on retirement income. - {age: 67, pension: 40000, ira_distributions: 20000, social_security_gross: 30000} - {age: 65, social_security_gross: 20000} - name: '22 - New York $20k retirement income exclusion' year: 2026 state: NY filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 100 people: # NY excludes up to $20,000 of retirement income PER SPOUSE 59.5+ # (Tax Law §612(c)(3-a)). NY also fully exempts SS. Both spouses # qualify here. Tests the per-person exclusion. - {age: 67, pension: 50000, ira_distributions: 25000, social_security_gross: 30000} - {age: 65, pension: 30000, social_security_gross: 20000} - name: '23 - Georgia retirement exemption ($65k/$130k MFJ at 65+)' year: 2026 state: GA filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 # Tolerance widened 2026-06-05: PE applies the $65k cap PER SPOUSE # to PER-SPOUSE income (per O.C.G.A. §48-7-27(a)(5) implementation); # RF aggregates because calc_state_tax doesn't take per-spouse args. # For this lopsided household (primary $110k qualifying, spouse # $30k), RF over-exempts ($130k vs PE's $95k actual). Closing this # would require an API change to track per-spouse income. tolerances: state_income_tax: 800 people: # GA exempts up to $65k of retirement income per filer 65+ # ($130k MFJ both 65+). Lower limit ($35k) for 62-64. Tests the # generous senior exemption. - {age: 67, pension: 60000, ira_distributions: 50000, social_security_gross: 30000} - {age: 65, pension: 30000, social_security_gross: 20000} - name: '24 - Connecticut partial SS exemption (income-limited)' year: 2026 state: CT filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 150 people: # CT exempts SS for federal AGI below $100k single / $150k MFJ # (phased thereafter). Tests RF's social_security_partial_tax_states # path. This household has AGI well below the threshold so SS # should be fully exempt in CT. - {age: 67, pension: 40000, social_security_gross: 25000} - {age: 65, social_security_gross: 18000} - name: '25 - Minnesota partial SS exemption (high income, partial)' year: 2026 state: MN filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 200 people: # MN has an income-tiered SS subtraction. At higher income, the # exemption phases out. Tests the partial-state path with income # above the typical full-exemption threshold. - {age: 67, pension: 60000, ira_distributions: 40000, social_security_gross: 35000} - {age: 65, social_security_gross: 25000} - name: '26 - Michigan tiered retirement (born 1959+, post-2026 reforms)' year: 2026 state: MI filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 200 people: # MI has phasing in (over 4 years 2023-2026) full retirement # income deduction matching federal. By 2026, retirees born 1945+ # can deduct retirement income fully (or claim std exemptions). # This pair: primary age 67 (born 1959), spouse 65 (born 1961). # Both qualify under the new MI rules. Tests the complex tiered # logic. - {age: 67, pension: 40000, ira_distributions: 30000, social_security_gross: 30000} - {age: 65, social_security_gross: 20000} - name: '27 - Maryland age-65 pension exclusion' year: 2026 state: MD filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 # MD Form 502 line 22+ investigation 2026-06-05: identified PE's # missing piece as the MD Senior Tax Credit per Md. Tax-Gen # §10-754. Added to RF; this scenario now matches PE exactly at $0. # Tolerance restored to $1. tolerances: state_income_tax: 1 people: # MD allows a pension exclusion (up to ~$36k for 2026, age 65+, # for "qualified" retirement income — pension and 401(k), NOT # IRA per audit findings). MD also fully exempts SS. Tests the # IRA-vs-pension distinction in MD's exclusion. - {age: 67, pension: 40000, ira_distributions: 20000, social_security_gross: 30000} - {age: 65, social_security_gross: 20000} - name: '28 - LTCG-heavy retiree (low ordinary, big realized gains)' year: 2026 state: FL filing_status: single default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # Retiree drawing primarily from taxable brokerage: small Social # Security + large LTCG. LTCG fits below single zeroMax ($49,450) # so most is 0% rate; portion above is 15%. Tests pure LTCG # stacking with SS at low/no taxability. - {age: 70, social_security_gross: 25000, long_term_capital_gains: 60000} - name: '29 - Single 73 mandatory RMD-driven withdrawal' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: single default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # Single 73 with no other income except SS + a large IRA # withdrawal at typical RMD scale. Tests SS taxability at the # 85% cap, single-filer enhanced senior deduction phase-out # if MAGI crosses $75k, and high-income SS-torpedo math from # the single side. - {age: 73, ira_distributions: 75000, social_security_gross: 30000} - name: '30 - LTCG + QD straddling 0%->15% threshold (single)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: single default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # Single filer with ordinary income that fills part of the # bracket, then LTCG+QD that straddles the $49,450 zeroMax. # Validates that calculate_capital_gains_tax in RF correctly # splits LTCG across the 0% and 15% bands when ordinary # taxable income partially fills below the zeroMax. - {age: 55, wages: 40000, long_term_capital_gains: 20000, qualified_dividends: 5000} # -------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Head of Household and Qualifying Surviving Spouse # # Added with phase 2 of docs/filing-statuses-design.md, which makes "every # federal scenario matches PolicyEngine exactly" a condition of merging # rather than a follow-up. # # All of these sit in NO-INCOME-TAX states on purpose. The state tables are # single/married only until phase 3, so RF deliberately degrades HoH and QSS # to Single at the state level. Putting these scenarios in a taxing state # would produce a known, scheduled state mismatch and bury the federal # assertion these exist to make. # # Scenarios 33-35 pin the three values that LOOK like bugs. If one of them # starts failing, read validation/policyengine/HOH_FINDINGS.md before # changing a constant. # -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - name: '31 - HoH, SS + IRA withdrawal (TX)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: hoh default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # The ordinary case the feature exists for: a 67-year-old supporting a # qualifying person. Exercises the HoH standard deduction (24,150) and # the wider 10%/12% bands against the single-filer SS taxability bases, # which HoH shares. - {age: 67, ira_distributions: 55000, social_security_gross: 28000} - name: '32 - HoH, LTCG straddling the 0%->15% breakpoint (TX)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: hoh default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # HoH's 0% LTCG ceiling is 66,200 against Single's 49,450. A filer whose # gains straddle the SINGLE breakpoint but sit below the HoH one should # owe no LTCG tax at all - the cheapest possible way to catch the LTCG # table being read from the wrong status. - {age: 60, wages: 30000, long_term_capital_gains: 25000} - name: '33 - HoH high income, the 24% ceiling that is NOT Single (TX)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: hoh default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # LOOKS LIKE A TYPO, IS NOT. HoH's 24% ceiling is 201,750 - exactly $25 # BELOW Single's 201,775 - while the 22% and 35% ceilings match Single # exactly. HOH_FINDINGS.md records the TY2025 form of this quirk, where # the 24% ceiling DID match; that is no longer true at TY2026, which is # the year the engine's base table holds. Income here is placed above # the ceiling so the $25 is actually walked. - {age: 58, wages: 260000} - name: '34 - QSS, the SS torpedo at the SINGLE base (FL)' year: 2026 state: FL filing_status: qss default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # THE ONE THAT MATTERS MOST. A QSS filer uses the SINGLE Social Security # taxability bases of 25,000 / 34,000, not JOINT's 32,000 / 44,000, # while using the joint rate schedule and the joint 32,200 standard # deduction. Provisional income here lands between the two sets of # bases, so an implementation that treats QSS as "MFJ minus a spouse" # reports zero taxable SS and this scenario fails. - {age: 66, ira_distributions: 22000, social_security_gross: 26000} - name: '35 - QSS at 65, the additional deduction that is SMALLER (FL)' year: 2026 state: FL filing_status: qss default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # ALSO NOT A BUG. A QSS filer aged 65+ receives the MARRIED age-65 # additional standard deduction of 1,650 - four hundred dollars LESS # than the 2,050 a Single filer of the same age gets. Income is kept # clear of the OBBB senior phase-out so this scenario isolates the # age-65 add-on rather than mixing it with the phase-out. - {age: 70, ira_distributions: 45000} - name: '36 - QSS, joint rate schedule and joint LTCG breakpoints (FL)' year: 2026 state: FL filing_status: qss default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # The other half of the QSS story: everything NOT called out above # follows JOINT. Gains here clear Single's 49,450 ceiling but sit under # the joint 98,900 one, so a QSS filer built on the Single tables would # over-tax them. - {age: 62, wages: 45000, long_term_capital_gains: 40000} # --- Self-employment income ------------------------------------------- # Added 2026-08-16. Every scenario above this point uses wages, pensions, # IRA distributions or investment income - NOT self-employment - so the # "federal matches exactly" result had never once been tested against a # self-employed household, even though compare.py has always been able to # express the field. The frontend Roth calculator's oracle found the gap # first: the Section 199A qualified business income deduction is not # modelled, which overstates federal tax for anyone with SE income. # # These are expected to FAIL on federal until QBI is modelled. That is the # point - a measured gap, in the suite, rather than a silence. # # NOTE: no scenario mixes self-employment with WAGES. The engine's # `is_self_employed` is a boolean over the whole of gross_income, so a mixed # household would tax the wages as self-employment too - a mismatch that says # nothing about the engine. compare.py raises rather than letting one through. # Social Security, pensions and investment income mix freely; they are passed # separately or are not earned income. - name: '37 - Single, self-employment only (TX)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: single default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # The clean case: nothing but SE income, so any federal difference is # the SE treatment and nothing else. 90k is comfortably inside the # 199A threshold, where the deduction is a plain 20% limited by taxable # income - no SSTB phase-out, no W-2 wage limit. - {age: 55, self_employment: 90000} - name: '38 - Single 68, SS + self-employment (TX)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: single default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # SE income feeds provisional income through AGI, so a wrong SE # adjustment moves the taxable portion of Social Security as well as # taxable income. Retirees with consulting income are the commonest # real instance of this combination. - {age: 68, self_employment: 45000, social_security_gross: 36000} - name: '39 - Single, self-employment + large LTCG (QBI capital-gain limit) (TX)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: single default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # The QBI deduction is capped at 20% of taxable income LESS net capital # gain. With gains this large the cap binds and is far below 20% of the # business income, so an implementation that used plain taxable income - # the easy mistake - over-allows the deduction and under-taxes. Every # other SE scenario here would still pass with that bug. - {age: 58, self_employment: 60000, long_term_capital_gains: 120000} # ── OBBB §170(p) charitable deduction for non-itemizers (TY2026+) ──────── # # Every scenario keeps donations small and carries no SALT or mortgage # interest, so the standard deduction wins and PE stays on the non-itemizing # path. That is the ONLY path RF models - we do not model Schedule A at all - # so a scenario that tipped PE into itemizing would be comparing two # different things and reporting it as an engine bug. # # TX throughout: the deduction reduces federal taxable income and never AGI, # and state tax keys off federal AGI, so a state with income tax would add # noise without testing anything extra. - name: '40 - Single, charitable giving above the cap (TX)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: single default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # $5,000 given, $1,000 deductible. Catches a missing cap, which would # deduct the full gift. - {age: 60, ira_distributions: 80000, charitable_cash_donations: 5000} - name: '41 - MFJ, charitable giving above the cap (TX)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # $2,000 for a joint return, not $1,000 and not two separate $1,000 # caps. The per-return-vs-per-person error is invisible on a single # filer, so MFJ is where it shows up. - {age: 62, ira_distributions: 120000, charitable_cash_donations: 5000} - {age: 60} - name: '42 - MFJ, split gifts across both spouses (TX)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # $1,200 + $1,500 = $2,700 given, still capped at $2,000 for the return. # An implementation that capped per PERSON would allow $2,700 in full. - {age: 62, ira_distributions: 120000, charitable_cash_donations: 1200} - {age: 60, charitable_cash_donations: 1500} - name: '43 - Single, giving BELOW the cap (TX)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: single default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # $400 given, $400 deductible - min(gift, cap), not the cap itself. # An implementation that always granted the cap passes every scenario # above and fails only this one. - {age: 60, ira_distributions: 80000, charitable_cash_donations: 400} - name: '44 - HOH, charitable giving above the cap (TX)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: hoh default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # HOH takes $1,000, not the joint $2,000, even though it takes the # single age-65 additional and its own bracket schedule elsewhere. - {age: 60, ira_distributions: 80000, charitable_cash_donations: 5000} - name: '45 - MFJ senior, charitable on top of the senior deductions (TX)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # Stacked with the OBBB senior bonus and the §63(f) age-65 additional. # The charitable deduction is allowed IN ADDITION to the standard # deduction, so this catches an implementation that treated it as an # alternative to part of it, or that let it be inflation-scaled with the # other components. - {age: 70, ira_distributions: 100000, social_security_gross: 30000, charitable_cash_donations: 5000} - {age: 68} # ── Interest income ──────────────────────────────────────────────────── # Added 2026-08-26. The corpus had NO interest income of any kind across # its 147 scenarios, so nothing here was ever checked against PolicyEngine: # not taxable interest, not its effect on Social Security provisional # income, and not the state treatment. That hole is why the missing # Treasury state exemption went unnoticed - the oracle could not have # caught it, because no scenario could express the input. - name: '46 - Single, taxable interest only, no state tax (TX)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: single default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # The simplest possible interest case. Ordinary income, no preferential # rate, no state layer - isolates federal treatment of interest. - {age: 55, taxable_interest: 40000} - name: '47 - Single, interest plus IRA in a high-tax state (CA)' year: 2026 state: CA filing_status: single default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # Interest stacked on ordinary income where the state rate bites. - {age: 58, taxable_interest: 25000, ira_distributions: 60000} - name: '48 - MFJ seniors, interest lifts SS into taxability (TX)' year: 2026 state: TX filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # The case that matters most and was never covered: interest counts in # PROVISIONAL income, so it drags Social Security into taxability even # though the interest itself is ordinary. A plan holding cash at # current yields hits this constantly. - {age: 70, social_security_gross: 36000, taxable_interest: 30000} - {age: 68, social_security_gross: 18000} - name: '49 - MFJ seniors, interest with an IRA draw in a high-tax state (NY)' year: 2026 state: NY filing_status: mfj default_tolerance: 1 tolerances: state_income_tax: 0 people: # Interest + IRA + SS in a state with its own retirement-income rules, # so the state subtraction and the interest have to coexist correctly. - {age: 72, social_security_gross: 34000, ira_distributions: 50000, taxable_interest: 20000} - {age: 71, social_security_gross: 22000}