...from the NY Times relative to its February article that miscalculated the taxes of a hypothetical couple under President Trumps new tax reform. According to the Times, the couple would pay more taxes under the trump plan than they would have paid under the old tax rules. The thing was, the Times was outright wrong and they retracted that claim by 'correcting' it to say the couple would have received a $43 tax refund instead of having to pay an increase of $3,896 in taxes.
Well that was 'the thing was'. The thing is: now it has been reported that they were reportedly wrong about that $43 tax refund too in as much as they did not have the hypothetical couple claim other tax credits for an additional savings of $1,500. That additional savings should have been calculated into their tax returns as per "Chicago tax law professor Daniel Hemel, who said Times editors still don’t understand Trump’s tax cuts.". (More at the source.)
I would imagine the Times will eat more crow and tat they will correct their latest reported blunder with what amounts to retraction #2.
All the best,
Glenn B
Well that was 'the thing was'. The thing is: now it has been reported that they were reportedly wrong about that $43 tax refund too in as much as they did not have the hypothetical couple claim other tax credits for an additional savings of $1,500. That additional savings should have been calculated into their tax returns as per "Chicago tax law professor Daniel Hemel, who said Times editors still don’t understand Trump’s tax cuts.". (More at the source.)
I would imagine the Times will eat more crow and tat they will correct their latest reported blunder with what amounts to retraction #2.
All the best,
Glenn B