Posted on 03/08/2018 1:29:52 PM PST by MarvinStinson
A New York Times analysis of how the recently enacted tax reform law could affect a hypothetical couple's taxes was corrected to admit their taxes would actually go down, not up.
In the story from late February, the Times collaborated with TurboTax vice president Bob Meighan to lay out how the Republican-backed tax overhaul would affect "Samuel and Felicity Taxpayer," an imaginary couple from suburban New York that makes $183,911 a year. Samuel is a self-employed engineering consultant, and Felicity is as an employee of a design firm.
The "bottom line" of their analysis: "The family would owe $3,896 more in taxes under the new tax law."
But as a University of Chicago law professor noted on Twitter, the Times had missed a tax deduction in the bill that would drastically reduce the couple's burden by virtue of the fact that "Samuel Taxpayer" is self-employed.
Daniel Hemel
NYT has a really nice infographic explaining the ways in which the new tax law will play out on the 1040. Unfortunately, the bottom line conclusion -- that Samuel & Felicity will owe $3,896 more in taxes under the new law -- appears to be wrong. They'll actually owe less. 1/ https://twitter.com/nytimesbusiness/status/967885437095301122 …
Daniel Hemel
I say this as someone who is generally happy to point out the ways in which the new tax law produces unattractive results. But this couple appears to be among the winners -- largely on account of the fact that Samuel is self-employed. 2/
Daniel Hemel @DanielJHemel Replying to @DanielJHemel I say this as someone who is generally happy to point out the ways in which the new tax law produces unattractive results. But this couple appears to be among the winners -- largely on account of the fact that Samuel is self-employed. 2/
Daniel Hemel @DanielJHemel The Times calculates the couple’s taxable income in 2018 as $116,097. But it omits the § 199A deduction that Samuel can claim as a self-employed engineering consultant. That’s 20% x $89,454 = $17,891, and reduces their taxable income to $98,206. 3/
Hemel's tweets were highlighted by the Wall Street Journal‘s James Freeman, who wrote, "This must be some package of tax cuts, if even fictional characters invented by the New York Times are getting one!"
A few days later, the Times admitted its error and added a correction.
"An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the probable effect of the new tax law on a hypothetical couple's 2018 tax bill," the correction dated March 2 reads. "The TurboTax ‘What-If Worksheet' that generated the projection for their 2018 taxes failed to indicate that the couple would probably be entitled to claim a sizable deduction for income earned from consulting."
"As a result of that deduction, the amount they would likely owe on taxes would decline by $43, not rise by $3,896," the Times admitted.
It would have went up under Hillary a lot!
“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” quote from Hillary Clinton.
Hell of an advertisement for TurboTax.
"As a result of that deduction, the amount they would likely owe on taxes would decline by $43, not rise by $3,896," the Times admitted.
"Hell of an advertisement for TurboTax."
FWIW, my small March pension check reflected a reduction in taxes in the amount of $53.......That’s just over $600 per year........ Since my social security requires a minimum of 10% withholding, next year’s tax filing will likely be a larger refund.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.