Help with tax formula for marginal tax rates

[MZ]

I am trying to make a single formula that will calculate a person's taxable
income assuming the six different marginal tax rates that range from 10% to
35%, as income increases

For a single taxpayer, the marginal tax rates and the associated income
amounts are:

10% up to $8,350
15% up to $33,950
25% up to $82,250
28% up to $171,550
33% up to $372,950
35% over $372,950

I am using "IF" statements to test for each marginal tax rate.
I began the formula as follows, but it returns a value error.

Cell D36 is the taxpayer's income

=IF(D36<=8350,D36/10),IF(AND(D36>8350,D36<=D31),SUM(D36/10,D36/6.666))

Also, is the only way to multiply by a percentage to make a fraction with
the denominator the value of the percentage - e.g. 6.666 is 15%?

Thank you
--
MZ

[Stefi]

Create this table, say in a separate sheet (Sheet2):
A B
$0 10%
$8,350 15%
$33,950 25%
$82,250 28%
$171,550 33%
$372,950 35%
$372,950 35%

Then this formula returns tax rate for D36:
=VLOOKUP(D36,Sheet2!A:B,2)

--
Regards!
Stefi

„MZ” ezt írta:

[Stefi]

Sorry, the last row is inintentionally and unneccesarily duplicated!
--
Regards!
Stefi

„Stefi” ezt írta:

[Bob Phillips]

Try

=SUMPRODUCT(--(D36>{0;8350;39500;82500;171550;372950}),
(D36-{0;8350;39500;82500;171550;372950}), {0.1;0.05;0.1;0.03;0.05;0.02})

HTH

Bob

"MZ" <M...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5905508C-0DEC-4979...@microsoft.com...

[Stefi]

And there is a typo in the correction: unintentionally

[Jacob Skaria]

Or with the data arranged as mentioned by Stefi you can use LOOKUP()

=LOOKUP(D36,Sheet2!A:B)

Further you can add an IF() formula to validate the cell content

=IF(D36,LOOKUP(D36,Sheet2!A:B),"")

--
Jacob

[JLatham]

It's easy to deal with predetermined percentages such as 10%, 15% etc.
Simply express them as a decimal:
10% = .1
15% = .15
25% = .25
28% = .28
33% = .33
35% = .35
and multiply by that decimal value:
=8350/10
is same as
=8350 * .1
In fact, in some cases it's more accurate to do it that way:
=372950/3 [result is 124316.6667] (most people tend to think of 33% as 1/3
even though it really is not)
is not the same as
=372950*.33 [result is 123073.50]

[David Biddulph]

You don't need to convert 15% to 0.15. Just use 15% in your formula.
--
David Biddulph

"JLatham" <JLa...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F53216F1-365B-47AA...@microsoft.com...

[מיכאל (מיקי) אבידן‎]

Could you present a small exaple as - how per the Tax for an Income of $ 9,000
Is it: $ 1,350 OR $ 932.50 ?
Micky

[Joe User]

"MZ" wrote:
> I am trying to make a single formula that will calculate
> a person's taxable income assuming the six different
> marginal tax rates that range from 10% to 35%, as
> income increases

I presume you mean you are trying to calculate the tax, not the taxable
income [sic]. Of course, a person's taxable income has nothing to do with
the marginal tax rates.

> For a single taxpayer, the marginal tax rates and the
> associated income amounts are:

First, it would be prudent to enter the entire tax rate schedule, namely in
A1:C7 (forgive me if the format is mangled):

0 0 0%
0 0 10%
8350 835 15%
33950 4675 25%
82250 16750 28%
171550 41475 33%
372950 108216 35%

The first column is the marginal taxable income, the second column is the
marginal minimum tax, and the last column is the marginal tax rate. (The
missing fourth column is the same as the first column.)

Note that I added one row of zeros first. That makes some formulas easier
to write. We really only need the 0% in column C.

Then the tax can be computed by either of the following formulas:

=ROUND(VLOOKUP(D36,A2:C7,2) +
VLOOKUP(D36,A2:C7,3)*(D36-VLOOKUP(D36,A2:C7,1)), 2)

or

=ROUND(SUMPRODUCT(--(D36>A2:A7), D36-A2:A7, C2:C7-C1:C6), 2)

The SUMPRODUCT is more efficient, but it might be harder to understand. It
can be made more efficient by using constant arrays instead of a table. But
that might be more error-prone and harder to maintain from year to year.

Note that the additional "zero" row is not needed for the VLOOKUP formula.

Technically, the VLOOKUP formula is off by one. It could be corrected; but
it should work for correctly-designed marginal tax rate schedules. (One
year, the Georgia state tables were not designed correctly! I think that has
been corrected since.)

Finally, ROUND(...,2) could be changed to ROUND(...,0) if you want to round
to the dollar instead of to the penny.

----- original message -----

[מיכאל (מיקי) אבידן‎]

Coiuld you, please, present the tax for an income of 9,000 /
Is it: 1,350 OR: 932.50 ?
Micky

[rzink]

MZ,

I interpreted your question a bit dirrently than Stefi. Coming from an
accounting background, I understand your question to be, "what is the income
tax based on the taxable income entered into D36?"

First of all, you are correct in your title asking for the "marginal" income
tax, but this is a bit more complex than simply multiplying your taxable
income by the tax bracket.

For example: If a person has $50K of taxable income, the tax rate on the
first $8,349 is 10% ($835), the rate on the next $25,600 is 15% ($3,840), and
the rate on the ramaining $16,051 is 25% ($4,013). If you add up the
individual tax calculation, the total tax is $8,688 or an overall tax rate of
17.4%.

This can be done with a series of calculations set up as a table, but you
will end up with a very large and cumbersome formula if you try to put it all
in one cell.

rzink

[מיכאל (מיקי) אבידן‎]

rzink,
I understood the question "your way" but I don't think that the hereunder
presented formula can be pronouns to be cumbersome and/or long complicated.
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/622/nonamecz.png
Micky

[rzink]

Micky,

Your example is very nice. Thank you. Please note that my comment was not
directed is response to your comment, but someone else.

rzink

"מיכאל (מיקי) אבידן" wrote:

> rzink,
> I understood the question "your way" but I don't think that the hereunder
> presented formula can be pronouns to be cumbersome and/or long complicated.
> http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/622/nonamecz.png
> Micky
>
>
> "rzink" wrote:
>
> > MZ,
> >

> > I interpreted your question a bit diffently than Stefi. Coming from an

[מיכאל (מיקי) אבידן‎]

I was not "complaining" against whom your reply was intended to [you posted
it under MZs question and you even mentioned his 'Nick'].
What I was "complaining" against was the sentence [quote]:

"This can be done with a series of calculations set up as a table, but you
will end up with a very large and cumbersome formula if you try to put it all
in one cell".

Micky

[Bob Phillips]

Which is exactly what my formula gives, not large, not cumbersome, and all
in one cell.

---
HTH

Bob Phillips

"rzink" <rz...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:61EC09EF-40E0-4C4C...@microsoft.com...

[מיכאל (מיקי) אבידן‎]

Bob,
If I may - this was one of the "brainstorming" thread I participated in
during the last couple of weeks.
Your formula is, as you stated, "Not large, not cumbersome, and all
in one cell" - however, with your permission I have ONE important comment.
It is not a good idea to type all the various "values of steps" WITHIN the
formula.
If you'll take a close look - it seems that you have had more than one TYPO
in what you presented.
In addition - whenever one needs to change one, or more, values - he would
have to edit the formula and copy it along the Salaries.
By using your suggestion in a different approach all mistakes and "extra
work" that can be eliminated.
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6707/nonameqh.png
Thank you,
Micky

"Bob Phillips" wrote:

> .
>

[Bob Phillips]

Micky,

I agree that if the formula is used on many people a table would be the way
to go, on a single item, debatable.

However I just offered a solution, and it worked. I was responding to your
you where you showed a formula using INDIRECT, which is awful, and should be
avoided at all costs IMO. My solution worked, no INDIRECT, in one cell, not
cumbersome ... as I said.

Typos? I tested it and it seemed fine to me.

---
HTH

Bob Phillips

"????? (????) ?????" <micky-a*at*tapuz.co.il> wrote in message
news:3842BE91-02BF-444C...@microsoft.com...

[מיכאל (מיקי) אבידן‎]

Well..., for a salary of $ 50,000:
My formula returns: $ 8,687.50 and yours: $ 8,132.50
Would you be so kind to calculate the Income Tax step by step...?
Micky

"Bob Phillips" wrote:

> .
>

[Joe User]

I've been watching this part of the discussion, and it reminded me of dialog
between Dumb and Dumber (before Bob jumped in). I held my tongue because
everyone is entitled to post their opinions, no matter how misguided they
might.

"מיכאל (מיקי) אבידן" <micky-a*at*tapuz.co.il> wrote:
> Well..., for a salary of $ 50,000:
> My formula returns: $ 8,687.50 and yours: $ 8,132.50

You are correct: $8687.50 is the right answer.

But you don't need to throw out the baby with the bath water. You might
have simply noted that Bob had written 8950 and 39500 instead of 8350 and
33950.

"מיכאל (מיקי) אבידן" <micky-a*at*tapuz.co.il> wrote previously:

>> > By using your suggestion in a different approach all mistakes and
>> > "extra
>> > work" that can be eliminated.
>> > http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6707/nonameqh.png

Which now looks suspiciously like one of the solutions that I presented in
this thread two days ago, complete with relying on a row with 0%.

Bob wrote:
>> I was responding to your
>> you where you showed a formula using INDIRECT, which is awful

You (Micky) fail to acknowledge the point that Bob is trying to educate you
about, namely: INDIRECT is a volatile function, which carries a huge cost
in terms of worksheet preformance. Your first solution at
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/622/nonamecz.png was indeed unduly
cumbersome and complicated.

Micky wrote previously:

>> > with your permission I have ONE important comment.
>> > It is not a good idea to type all the various "values of steps"
>> > WITHIN the formula.

There is nothing wrong with Bob's approach. For my money, it is
error-prone, and it contains "simplifications" that deserved explanation;
but it is indeed the most efficient formulation, I believe. I can see why
it might have been a complete mystery to you, given that you did not even
know how US marginal tax rate tables work just 2 days ago.

I, for one, am getting sick and tired of your misguided sermonizing. It
reflects badly on you more than on the people you try to criticize. But if
you are going to berate people publicly, you should be a mensh and admit
your own mistakes publicly and up-front.

And do follow your own advice, misguided as it might have been in the
original context, namely:

``I would dare to say that 30-40% of the replies are Superfluous. I think
it will be a good idea that every supporter will adopt the "habit" of
pressing [F5] BEFORE(!) replying.``

[From: "מיכאל (מיקי) אבידן" <micky-a*at*tapuz.co.il>, Newsgroups:
microsoft.public.excel.misc, Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 10:35 AM,
Subject: Re: excel decimal rounding down all numbers.]

----- original message -----

"מיכאל (מיקי) אבידן" <micky-a*at*tapuz.co.il> wrote in message
news:09129D33-9042-46CB...@microsoft.com...

[Joe User]

PS....

I wrote:
> "מיכאל (מיקי) אבידן" <micky-a*at*tapuz.co.il> wrote previously:

>>> > http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6707/nonameqh.png
>
> Which now looks suspiciously like one of the solutions that I presented in
> this thread two days ago, complete with relying on a row with 0%.

Actually, your table is different in design: it is limited to incomes of
less than $10 million, whereas mine is not. Not a big limitation,
admittedly; but an unnecessary one.

> There is nothing wrong with Bob's approach [...] it is indeed the

> most efficient formulation, I believe.

I meant the most efficient formulation presented so far in this thread.

Some years ago, I was posting a formula using MAX. I suspect it is more
efficient, although I am not taking the time to test the theory. I still
use the MAX formula sometimes for quick-and-dirty implementations. But I
have adopted a table-driven design for responses because I believe it is
less error-prone and easier to maintain (change from year to year). It is
certainly easier to remember ;-).

----- original message -----

"Joe User" <joeu2004> wrote in message
news:uDzZ687j...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

[Stefi]

I'm wondering what an active dispute is in process while the OP didn't
respond at all!
--
Regards!
Stefi

„MZ” ezt írta:

> I am trying to make a single formula that will calculate a person's taxable