Jason DeBacker

I'm now marking this PR as ready for review. While it doesn't test all the logic of `calcfunctions.TaxInc`, it does test the QBID logic and finds that the current code...

@martinholmer Thanks for the comments. >A conclusion that "the current code is correct" would be true only if the test in this PR is strong: that is, explores all the...

This PR will be ready for review following the resolution of unit testing issues noted in Issue #2525.

Note that Travis CI doesn't seem to be reported in the checks here, but [it is passing on 3.6 and failing on 3.7 and 3.8](https://travis-ci.com/github/jdebacker/Tax-Calculator/builds/211706839). The test that fails is...

@MattHJensen Yes, I'm glad to try to add some validation exercises. I think those would be very important as a check on updates to the policy parameters. Thanks for pointing...

I'm not getting zero diffs for 2011 and 2012. I've been able to diagnose a couple errors from the validation process, but have been spinning my wheels with another. In...

@feenberg I'm trying to validate these additions of 2011 and 2012 tax law against TAXSIM27. I've spent a fair bit of time and can't find the root of some differences...

@feenberg I just followed up via email - perhaps that will be easier. Thanks!

Update on the validation process: I was able to get the "a" file to match for 2011, but it required setting `EITC_ps_MarriedJ` to the following: ``` { "year": 2011, "EIC":...

@MattHJensen This validation is really time consuming and I haven't returned to it since my last comment - which means I still need to validate the "b" and "c" files...