Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use AMT_CG_rt1 parameter in AMT function #1000

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 19, 2016
Merged

Use AMT_CG_rt1 parameter in AMT function #1000

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 19, 2016

Conversation

martinholmer
Copy link
Collaborator

This pull request fixes an AMT function bug in which the AMT_CG_rt1 policy parameter was not used: essentially, the value of this parameter had been hardwired to zero. This bug fix does not cause any changes in current-law-policy output because AMT_CG_rt1 is zero under current law. But this bug fix does cause changes in any reform that specifies a positive value for AMT_CG_rt1. Examples of such reforms are 30 and 31 in taxcalc/comparison/reforms.json, which is part of the standard Tax-Calculator test suite.

@MattHJensen @feenberg @Amy-Xu @GoFroggyRun @andersonfrailey @codykallen

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Oct 19, 2016

Current coverage is 98.27% (diff: 100%)

Merging #1000 into master will not change coverage

@@             master      #1000   diff @@
==========================================
  Files            35         35          
  Lines          2089       2089          
  Methods           0          0          
  Messages          0          0          
  Branches          0          0          
==========================================
  Hits           2053       2053          
  Misses           36         36          
  Partials          0          0          

Powered by Codecov. Last update fae6478...2be2519

@martinholmer martinholmer merged commit 3718be0 into PSLmodels:master Oct 19, 2016
@martinholmer martinholmer deleted the amtcg-bugfix1 branch October 21, 2016 11:00
@martinholmer martinholmer mentioned this pull request Oct 22, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants