Accountability
Corrections
Every figure that was wrong, what it should have been, and the primary source that settled it. Nothing is removed from this page.
A tax calculator that has never published a correction is either perfect or not looking. This one is not perfect. Each entry below records a figure that a source we consulted got wrong — in several cases a source we had already written into the data file — and what the statute or the revenue department actually says.
None of these reached a published figure. Every one was caught before or at the point of verification, which is the whole reason the engine refuses to compute from unverified data. That is luck as much as process, and it is why the log is public.
The log
· secondary source disagreed with statute · caught before publication
Idaho — capital gains deduction
What was wrong. The engine applied every state capital gains subtraction by default, on the reasoning that the qualifying case is the common one. Applied to Idaho that produced $4,240 of state tax on a $200,000 share sale — 2.12% against a statutory 5.3% — because the 60% deduction was taken on an asset that cannot claim it.
What it is. Idaho Code 63-3022H reaches Idaho real property, tangible property in a revenue-producing enterprise, livestock and timber. It EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES intangible property: stocks, bonds and partnership, LLC or S-corporation interests never qualify. A share sale is taxed in full, $10,600. Each relief now carries its own default, so Arizona and Arkansas — whose reliefs do reach the ordinary case — are unaffected.
Source: Idaho Code 63-3024(2) and 63-3022H, read 3 September 2026
· secondary source disagreed with statute · caught before publication
Missouri — capital gains
What was wrong. Missouri was carried as unverified with a note that "a secondary source reports Missouri now EXEMPTS capital gains", and was shown as not yet available. The state was treated as blocked on its RATE, which is genuinely unverifiable from the statute alone.
What it is. The rate never mattered. Mo. Rev. Stat. 143.121.3(14)(a) subtracts "one hundred percent of all income reported as a capital gain for federal income tax purposes" from federal AGI for tax years from 2025, so the gain leaves the base before any rate is applied. Missouri capital gains tax is $0, short-term included. The rate at 143.011 remains unverified and is still not published anywhere on this site.
Source: Mo. Rev. Stat. 143.121.3(14)(a), effective text dated 28 August 2025
· repeal document narrower than its title · caught before publication
Louisiana — individual income tax
What was wrong. A legis.la.gov document titled "Repeals the individual income tax" was read as leaving the repeal question open, and Louisiana was held unverified and uncomputed for months on that basis. Taken at its title the document says Louisiana has no income tax at all.
What it is. The title describes a repeal of the tax’s STRUCTURE. R.S. 47:32(B), the graduated bracket schedule, is marked "Repealed by Acts 2024, 3rd Ex. Sess., No. 11, s4, eff. Dec. 4, 2024"; subsection (A), which imposes the tax, stands and sets a flat 3% on net income. The same act also repealed the capital gains exclusions at 293(9)(a)(ix) and (xvii). Louisiana is now verified and computed at 3%.
Source: La. R.S. 47:32(A) and 47:293(9)(a), read 3 September 2026
· superseded by later legislation · caught before publication
Georgia — flat income tax rate
What was wrong. The data file carried 5.19%, sourced from Tax Foundation. That was the rate HB 111 set in April 2025, and the rate Georgia did begin 2026 under.
What it is. HB 463 reduced it to 4.99% effective 1 January 2026. The Department of Revenue states it directly: "The Georgia income tax rate has been reduced to a flat rate of 4.99%."
Source: Georgia Department of Revenue, Important Tax Updates
· introduced bill mistaken for law · caught before publication
Kentucky — flat income tax rate
What was wrong. A search result asserted 4% for tax year 2026, citing HB 152 of the 2026 session. HB 152 is an introduced bill, not an enacted one.
What it is. KRS 141.020(2)(f): "For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2026, the tax shall be three and one-half percent (3.5%) of net income."
Source: Ky. Rev. Stat. 141.020(2)(f)
· expired provision quoted as current · caught before publication
Kansas — zero-rate band
What was wrong. A research pack presented a zero-rate band as part of the current Kansas bracket structure. The text is genuinely in the statute.
What it is. It expired. K.S.A. 79-32,110 applied the zero-rate provision only "for tax years 2018 through 2023". For 2026 the rates are 5.2% and 5.58% with no zero band.
Source: K.S.A. 79-32,110
· stale year republished as current · caught before publication
Massachusetts — Fair Share surtax threshold
What was wrong. Secondary sources circulated $1,053,750 as the current surtax threshold. That is the 2024 figure, republished as though it were current.
What it is. The Department certifies a new amount annually. For tax year 2026 it is $1,107,750. The series runs $1,000,000 (2023), $1,053,750 (2024), $1,083,150 (2025), $1,107,750 (2026).
Source: MA DOR 2026 Form 2-ES, "Taxpayers Subject to the 4% Surtax"
· secondary source disagreed with statute · caught before publication
Washington — long-term capital gains excise
What was wrong. Tax Foundation listed Washington at 9%, and that figure was carried into an early draft of the state data.
What it is. RCW 82.87.040 imposes 7% on long-term gains plus an additional 2.90% on the portion above $1,000,000 — a 9.9% marginal rate, not 9%.
Source: RCW 82.87.040
What these have in common
Not one of them was a transcription slip. Every entry is a case where a source was internally plausible and simply not the operative rule — superseded by a later act, an introduced bill that never passed, a provision that expired years ago, or last year's figure republished without its year. The full taxonomy, with the checks each one implies, is on the methodology page.
The practical consequence is the rule this project runs on: a figure is either read from a primary source or it is not used, and a quotation is not evidence on its own — the years a provision applies to are part of the figure. How that is enforced is set out in the editorial policy.
Found one?
Corrections are the most useful thing anyone can send. Include the inputs you used, the figure you got, the figure you believe is right, and a primary source — a statute section, a revenue department page, or a Revenue Procedure. The Show your work panel names the rule and citation behind every line, which usually pinpoints the disputed figure exactly. Contact details are here.