This is a public, dated ledger of documented discrepancies: places where a major calculator, a widely repeated figure, or occasionally an official publication itself disagrees with the primary source. Every entry carries the evidence and the official document that settles it. Tone rules we hold ourselves to: only discrepancies we measured ourselves, stated neutrally, dated, with a living link - this is an audit trail, not a callout board.
August 2026 25 findings
2026-08-13
One row of the table repeats the cumulative amount printed on the row above it. For monthly taxable income between $20,833 and $41,667 the guide says to withhold $953.13 plus 8.50 percent of the excess. But $953.13 is the figure that belongs to the row above, and the guide's own next row proves it: that row starts at $3,411.49, which is only reachable from $1,640.60. An employer who applies the printed row withholds $687.47 a month too little for every employee in that band.
Their figure: $953.13 plus 8.50% of excess over $20,833 · Per the official source: $1,640.60 plus 8.50% of excess over $20,833
Evidence: Downloaded 2026-08-13, HTTP 200, 1,430,746 bytes, 42 pages, read as PDF. The same page carries the arithmetic that contradicts the row three separate ways: the row above resolves to $1,640.60 at the band boundary; the row below prints $3,411.49, which equals $1,640.60 plus 8.50% of $20,834 and cannot be reached from $953.13; and the Semi-Monthly table on the same page prints $820.31 at the matching band, twice which is $1,640.62. Maryland Employer Withholding Guide, effective January 2026 (Revised December 2025) · last checked 2026-08-13
“$ 12,500 $ 20,833 953.13 plus 8.25% $ 12,500” page 23 — the row above, where $953.13 belongs
“$ 20,833 $ 41,667 953.13 plus 8.50% $ 20,833” page 23 — the row that repeats it
“$ 41,667 $ 83,333 3,411.49 plus 9.00% $ 41,667” page 23 — the row that proves the correct figure
The check: Walk the table's own chain. Row three: 953.13 + 8.25% of (20,833 - 12,500) = 953.13 + 687.47 = 1,640.60, so row four should open at $1,640.60. Row five opens at $3,411.49, and 1,640.60 + 8.50% of (41,667 - 20,833) = 3,411.49 exactly - while 953.13 + 8.50% of the same band gives 2,724.02, which is not what the guide prints. Second check without leaving the page: the Monthly figures are double the Semi-Monthly ones, and the Semi-Monthly table prints 820.31 where Monthly should print 1,640.60.
2026-08-13
This table skips a rate. For monthly taxable income between $25,000 and $50,000 it prints 8.25 percent, the same rate as the row above, where every other table in the guide steps up to 8.50 percent. The cumulative amounts on either side are correct, which is what exposes the rate: the next row opens at $4,072.92, and you can only get there from $1,947.92 at 8.50 percent.
Their figure: $1,947.92 plus 8.25% of excess over $25,000 · Per the official source: $1,947.92 plus 8.50% of excess over $25,000
Evidence: Downloaded 2026-08-13, HTTP 200, 1,430,746 bytes, 42 pages, read as PDF. Five of the six tables printed on page 23 run 7.75, 8.00, 8.25, 8.50, 9.00, 9.25; this one runs 7.75, 8.00, 8.25, 8.25, 9.00, 9.25. The Semi-Monthly table for the same filers, on the same page, prints 8.50% for the matching band. Maryland Employer Withholding Guide, effective January 2026 (Revised December 2025) · last checked 2026-08-13
“$ 25,000 $ 50,000 1,947.92 plus 8.25% $ 25,000” page 23 — the row with the repeated rate
“$ 50,000 $ 100,000 4,072.92 plus 9.00% $ 50,000” page 23 — the row that pins the rate at 8.50%
“$ 12,500 $ 25,000 973.96 plus 8.50% $ 12,500” page 23 — the Semi-Monthly table, same filers, same band, on the same page
The check: Subtract the two cumulative figures the guide prints: 4,072.92 - 1,947.92 = 2,125.00 across a $25,000 band, which is 8.50 percent, not the 8.25 percent printed. At 8.25 percent the next row would have to open at $4,010.42.
2026-08-13
Two rows of this table overstate the tax. For semi-monthly taxable income between $20,833 and $41,667 the guide says to withhold $1,789.06 plus 9.35 percent of the excess, where its own annual, monthly and quarterly tables for the same 3.10 percent rate all put that figure at $1,778.65. The last row carries the error forward: it opens at $3,737.01 where those same tables give $3,726.56. An employer applying the printed rows withholds about $10.41 too much per pay period, roughly $250 a year, for every employee in that band.
Their figure: $1,789.06 plus 9.35% of excess over $20,833 (and $3,737.01 on the row below) · Per the official source: $1,778.65 plus 9.35% of excess over $20,833 (and $3,726.56 on the row below)
Evidence: Downloaded 2026-08-13, HTTP 200, 1,430,746 bytes, 42 pages, read as PDF. Four independent checks agree and the printed figure disagrees with all four: the row above resolves to $1,778.59 at the band boundary; the annual table for the same rate prints $42,687.50, which is $1,778.65 over 24 pay periods; the monthly table prints $3,557.32, half of which is $1,778.66; and the quarterly table prints $10,671.88, a sixth of which is $1,778.65. Our full replay of the guide's 973 published cells reproduces all 133 annual and 140 quarterly cells exactly, so the three witnesses are not in doubt. Maryland Employer Withholding Guide, effective January 2026 (Revised December 2025) · last checked 2026-08-13
“$ 20,833 $ 41,667 1,789.06 plus 9.35% $ 20,833” page 35 — the row that overstates the tax
“$ 41,667 $ -- 3,737.01 plus 9.60% $ 41,667” page 35 — the row that carries the error forward
“$ 10,417 $ 20,833 856.77 plus 8.85% $ 10,417” page 35 — the row above, from which the correct figure follows
The check: Walk the table's own chain: 856.77 + 8.85% of (20,833 - 10,417) = 856.77 + 921.82 = 1,778.59, not 1,789.06. Then check it against the guide's other tables for the same 3.10% rate, which are built from the same brackets: the annual table prints $42,687.50 at that step, and 42,687.50 / 24 = 1,778.65; the monthly prints $3,557.32, and half of that is 1,778.66; the quarterly prints $10,671.88, and a sixth is 1,778.65. Three tables and the chain all land within seven cents of each other, and ten dollars away from the figure printed here.
2026-08-13
The last row of this table opens at $3,539.90, where the guide's own annual, monthly and quarterly tables for the same 2.65 percent rate all put it at $3,539.06. The amount is small - about 84 cents per pay period - but it is the same class of defect as the others on this page: a figure that contradicts every other table built from the same brackets.
Their figure: $3,539.90 plus 9.15% of excess over $41,667 · Per the official source: $3,539.06 plus 9.15% of excess over $41,667
Evidence: Downloaded 2026-08-13, HTTP 200, 1,430,746 bytes, 42 pages, read as PDF. The row above resolves to $3,539.13 at the band boundary; the annual table for the same rate prints $84,937.50, which is $3,539.06 over 24 pay periods; the monthly table prints $7,078.09, half of which is $3,539.05; the quarterly prints $21,234.38, a sixth of which is $3,539.06. The printed $3,539.90 agrees with none of them. Maryland Employer Withholding Guide, effective January 2026 (Revised December 2025) · last checked 2026-08-13
“$ 41,667 $ -- 3,539.90 plus 9.15% $ 41,667” page 20 — the row that disagrees with the other tables
“$ 20,833 $ 41,667 1,684.90 plus 8.90% $ 20,833” page 20 — the row above, from which the correct figure follows
The check: 1,684.90 + 8.90% of (41,667 - 20,833) = 1,684.90 + 1,854.23 = 3,539.13. The annual table for the same rate prints $84,937.50, and 84,937.50 / 24 = 3,539.06; the monthly prints $7,078.09, half of which is 3,539.05. The printed 3,539.90 matches none of these.
2026-08-13
Every row of these tables ends with an 'of excess over' figure that repeats the row's own lower bound - that is what the column is for. On 910 of the 918 rows that carry it, it does. On seven, it does not. Three of them are off by $50,000: the top quarterly row for married filers says to take the excess over $250,000 when the row itself starts at $300,000, on pages 11, 14 and 17. An employer following the printed instruction taxes an extra $50,000 of wages every quarter - $4,450 too much at the 2.40 percent county table's 8.90 percent rate. The annual table on page 18 goes the other way and points at $600,000 for a row that starts at $300,000, and page 11 prints '$41,6670', a figure with one digit too many.
Their figure: of excess over $250,000 on rows that start at $300,000 (p.11, p.14, p.17); $600,000 on a row starting at $300,000 (p.18); $14,853 for $14,583 (p.17); $50,500 for $50,000 (p.26); $41,6670 for $41,667 (p.11) · Per the official source: each row's 'of excess over' should repeat that row's own lower bound
Evidence: Downloaded 2026-08-13, HTTP 200, 1,430,746 bytes, 42 pages, read as PDF with a column-aware extraction (the guide sets its tables in two columns, married left and single right). The check is structural and compares the guide only to itself: 918 rows carry the column, 910 repeat their own bound, 7 do not. Each of the seven was then cross-checked against the state rate schedule published separately in the Withholding Tax Facts 2026, which confirms in every case that the row's lower bound is the correct figure and the 'of excess over' cell is the wrong one. Maryland Employer Withholding Guide, effective January 2026 (Revised December 2025) · last checked 2026-08-13
“$ 300,000 $ -- 24,668.75 plus 8.90% $ 250,000” page 17 — quarterly, married filers, 2.40 percent county table
“$ 300,000 $ 600,000 22,325.00 plus 8.15% $ 600,000” page 18 — the annual table, pointing past its own upper bound
“$ 41,667 $ -- 1,375.01 plus 3.30% $ 41,6670” page 11 — one digit too many
The check: Read down any 'of excess over' column: every row repeats the figure in its own 'Over' cell. Then look at the last row of the quarterly table for married filers on page 17: it starts at $300,000 and points at $250,000. Applied literally, an employee at $300,000 of quarterly taxable income has 8.90% charged on $50,000 that the row does not cover - $4,450 per quarter. The state rate schedule in the Withholding Tax Facts 2026 puts the bracket boundary at $1,200,000 a year, which is $300,000 a quarter, confirming which of the two cells is wrong.
2026-08-13
The last row opens at $83,833. It should open at $83,333 - one million dollars a year over twelve months - and the row's own 'of excess over' cell says exactly that, $83,333. The two cells of the same row contradict each other, and the row above ends at $83,333, so the table skips a $500 band that belongs to nobody.
Their figure: Over $83,833 · Per the official source: Over $83,333
Evidence: Downloaded 2026-08-13, HTTP 200, 1,430,746 bytes, 42 pages, read as PDF. Three things agree on $83,333 and only the 'Over' cell disagrees: the row's own 'of excess over' cell, the upper bound of the row above it, and the state rate schedule of the Withholding Tax Facts 2026, whose top bracket for single filers starts at $1,000,000 a year - $83,333.33 a month. This is the only row of the 973 we replay where the bracket boundary itself is wrong. Maryland Employer Withholding Guide, effective January 2026 (Revised December 2025) · last checked 2026-08-13
“$ 83,833 $ -- 6,869.76 plus 8.90% $ 83,333” page 17 — the row that contradicts itself
“$ 41,667 $ 83,333 3,265.65 plus 8.65% $ 41,667” page 17 — the row above, which ends at $83,333
The check: The row above ends at $83,333 and this one starts at $83,833, so $500 of monthly income falls in neither. The row's own 'of excess over' cell already says $83,333, and $1,000,000 a year over twelve months is $83,333.33.
2026-08-12
The consolidated statute page renders only paragraphs (A)(1) through (A)(6), which stop at the 2019 rate schedule, and never renders paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 - the ones that phase in the flat rate. The page contradicts itself: its own subsection E refers to "the highest tax rate imposed by subsection A, paragraph 6, 7, 8 or 9 of this section". A reader going to the state legislature for the rate that governs every Arizona taxpayer cannot find it there.
Their figure: The string "2.5%" does not appear anywhere on the page; the last rate shown is the 2019 schedule · Per the official source: 2.5% of taxable income, per A.R.S. 43-1011(A)(9) as added by Laws 2021, Chapter 412, section 15
Evidence: Fetched 2026-08-12: HTTP 200, 11,076 bytes. Paragraph markers (1) to (6) are present in the rendered text, (7), (8) and (9) are absent, while the phrase "paragraph 6, 7, 8 or 9" is present in subsection E. Confirmed twice, once by raw HTTP and once in a real browser. Laws 2021, Chapter 412, section 15 (session law adding A.R.S. 43-1011(A)(9)) · last checked 2026-08-12
2026-08-09
Arkansas authorises employers to use either method, and the two do not agree. Step 3 of the formula says to round the annual gross tax to whole dollars before the exemption credit and the division; the wage-bracket tables are built without that rounding. The state's own worked example makes the gap visible: for a monthly employee earning $2,127 with 2 exemptions the formula yields $36.50 per period ($495.73 rounded to $496.00, less $58, divided by 12) while the table row covering $2,123-$2,131 with 2 exemptions prints $36.48 ($495.73 less $58, divided by 12). Measured across the 26,460 published table cells, our implementation of the formula without that rounding matches 25,053 of them and every remaining gap is exactly one cent; with the rounding the formula prescribes, it matches 8,324.
Their figure: $36.48 per pay period (wage-bracket tables, page 68) · Per the official source: $36.50 per pay period (formula method, worked example page 4)
Evidence: Both documents downloaded and parsed on 2026-08-09; the 26,460 table cells were extracted from the PDF by coordinates and replayed against the formula in decimal arithmetic. Neither figure is wrong on its own terms - the two official methods simply do not reconcile to the cent. AR DFA, Withholding Tax Formula Method, effective 01/01/2026 · last checked 2026-08-09
2026-08-09
The booklet's own worked example does not reproduce from the booklet's own table. It takes a single filer paid $1,800 a week, annualises to $93,600, and prints an annual withholding of $734.00. The table on the facing page starts single withholding above $57,625 at 1.95%, which gives $701.51. The example is traceable to the prior year: the 2025 booklet's single threshold is $55,975, and (93,600 - 55,975) x 1.95% = $733.69, which rounds to the $734.00 printed. The table was updated for 2026; the example was not.
Their figure: $734.00 of annual withholding on $93,600, single · Per the official source: $701.51 by the 2026 table on the facing page
Evidence: The 2026 table is internally consistent: for all three filing statuses the published base of the top bracket equals (upper - lower) x 1.95% to the cent, which rules out a misreading on our side. The wage-bracket grid in the same booklet is built on the 2026 threshold too - its first non-zero weekly band is $1,125-$1,150, where the 2025 threshold would have put it at $1,100-$1,125. We replay all 2,649 published cells of that grid on every build and reproduce every one. We therefore follow the table and the grid, which is what an employer applies, and our North Dakota badge is earned on those cells, never on the worked example. ND Office of State Tax Commissioner, Withholding Rates & Instructions, for wages paid in 2026, pp. 45-46 · last checked 2026-08-09
“Example. An employee is paid $1,800.00 for a weekly pay” page 46
“(Line 1 x Line 2) ................................3 93,600.00” page 46
“734.00” page 46
“0 + 1.95% of amount over $ 57,625” page 45
The check: (93,600 - 57,625) x 1.95% = 701.51, not the 734.00 printed. Against the 2025 booklet's threshold: (93,600 - 55,975) x 1.95% = 733.69, which rounds to 734.00 - the example is the prior year's.
The law behind the document: N.D.C.C. § 57-38-30.3, Individual, estate, and trust income tax; withholding duty under § 57-38-59, Withholding from wages of employees. Section titles read verbatim from the chapter PDF on the legislature's site, 9 August 2026.
2026-08-09
Vermont's document page titled "2026 VT Rate Schedules" serves a file that contains no rate schedule at all. All ten of its pages are headed "2026 Vermont Wage Bracket Withholding Charts" - a different document, for a different purpose. Withholding charts tell an employer what to deduct from a paycheck; a rate schedule tells a taxpayer what they owe on their return. The words "Taxable Income" and "Schedule" appear nowhere in the 2026 file, and appear on the first line of the 2025 one.
Their figure: a page named "2026 VT Rate Schedules", serving RateSched-2026.pdf · Per the official source: that file is the 2026 Wage Bracket Withholding Charts; the 2026 rate schedule itself is not published
Evidence: The department's own rates page lists rate schedules for 2019 through 2025 and stops there - the most recent is TaxRateSched-2025.pdf, one page, headed "2025 Vermont Tax Rate Schedules" and opening on a worked example of Vermont Taxable Income from Form IN-111. The 2026 file reuses the older RateSched-YYYY naming for an entirely different publication. We checked because we needed Vermont's 2026 annual brackets to publish a calculator page, and we could not find them; a taxpayer looking for the same thing lands on the same wrong file. Vermont Department of Taxes, document page "2026 VT Rate Schedules", serving RateSched-2026.pdf (10 pp.) · last checked 2026-08-09
“2026 Vermont Wage Bracket Withholding Charts 2026” page 1
The check: Open the file linked from the page titled "2026 VT Rate Schedules" and search it: "Wage Bracket" appears on all 10 pages; "Rate Schedule", "Schedule" and "Taxable Income" appear 0 times. Re-downloaded and re-counted on 9 August 2026.
The law behind the document: 32 V.S.A. § 5822, Tax on income of individuals, estates, and trusts. The statute itself requires the amounts in its tables to be adjusted annually for inflation by the Commissioner of Taxes - which is what makes serving withholding charts under the rate schedule's name, with the year's schedule unpublished, a findability defect and not a cosmetic one.
2026-08-09
Two Maine documents, both for tax year 2026, print different standard deduction amounts. The withholding booklet states that "the Maine basic standard deduction amounts are $15,300 for single and $30,600 for married individuals filing joint returns". Form 1040ES-ME 2026 lists, under "Standard Deduction for 2026", $15,700 for single, $31,400 for married filing jointly or qualifying surviving spouse, $23,550 for head of household and $15,700 for married filing separately. Neither figure is last year's: the 2025 booklet gives $15,000 and $30,000.
Their figure: $15,300 single / $30,600 joint, in the withholding booklet (file dated 23 December 2025) · Per the official source: $15,700 single / $31,400 joint, in Form 1040ES-ME 2026 (file dated 17 July 2026)
Evidence: The two files are seven months apart and the agency has not said which is right; we do not arbitrate the conflict here. Until Maine resolves it, our annual-liability figures carry the later, return-side amounts - flagged, watched, and changed the day the agency reaffirms either figure. The gap is $400 of deduction for a single filer and $800 for a couple - about $27 and $54 of tax at the 6.75% bracket. Note that this is a different question from the deduction used inside the withholding formula itself, which the booklet sets separately and deliberately at $12,450 and $27,750; that one is not in dispute. We reproduce the booklet's own worked example exactly: a single employee on $1,000 a week with two allowances, annualised to $52,000, less $10,600 of allowances and $12,450 of withholding deduction, gives $28,950 of annualised income and $33 withheld each week. Maine Revenue Services, Form 1040ES-ME 2026, p. 2, against the 2026 Withholding Tables booklet (26_wh_tab_instr.pdf) · last checked 2026-08-09
“Maine basic standard deduction amounts are $15,300* for single and $30,600* for” page 1 — Withholding Tables for Individual Income Tax 2026 (file dated 23 December 2025)
“Single------------------------ $15,700” page 2 — Form 1040ES-ME 2026 (file dated 17 July 2026)
The check: Two documents of the same agency, for the same tax year, differ by $400 single and $800 joint. Neither repeats the 2025 figures ($15,000 / $30,000), so it is not a stale copy of the prior year.
The law behind the document: 36 M.R.S. § 5124-C, Standard deduction; resident on or after January 1, 2018. One statute, one deduction - which is why two different 2026 figures printed by the same agency cannot both be right.
2026-08-08
The Department's own page for withholding tables offers a single document: 1802EMR030.pdf, a Declaration of Emergency dated February 2018 whose text reads "Employers should begin using the 2018 withholding tables" and whose rates are the pre-reform progressive 2.1% and 2.2%. The live 2026 document, R-1306 (1/26), exists but is reachable only through the forms catalogue, not from the page named after it. Anyone sourcing Louisiana withholding from the obvious official link gets rates that were repealed by Act 11 of the 2024 Third Extraordinary Session.
Their figure: 2.1% / 2.2% progressive withholding (2018 emergency rule, the only PDF the tables page links) · Per the official source: flat 3% income tax, withheld at 3.09%, standard deduction $12,875 / $25,750 (R-1306, revision 1/26)
Evidence: Both documents downloaded and read in full on 2026-08-08: the linked PDF cites no year other than 2018; R-1306 (1/26) is headed "Effective on or after January 1, 2026". LA R-1306 (1/26), Louisiana Withholding Tables and Formulas · last checked 2026-08-08
2026-08-08
One page carries two different rates for the same year. A prose sentence reads "In 2026, the graduated 2025 tax year income tax rate is: 0% on the first $10,000 ... 4.4% on the remaining taxable income", while the dated table immediately below assigns 4% to tax year 2026 and 3.75% to 2027. The prose is about the tax year 2025 return filed during calendar 2026; read as a rate for 2026 earnings it overstates the tax by 10%.
Their figure: 4.4% quoted in prose for "2026" · Per the official source: 4.0% for tax year 2026, per the same page's dated table and Pub 89-700
Evidence: Both statements captured from the same page on 2026-08-08; the 4% figure is corroborated by the Exemptions and Deductions Schedule in Pub 89-700 (file revised 2026-01-13), which prints "Taxable Income (Tax Year 2026) ... Remaining balance (excess of $10,000) 4.0%". MS Pub 89-700-25-1, Withholding Income Tax Tables and Employer Instructions · last checked 2026-08-08
2026-08-07
NC-30 publishes two routes to the same number and they do not always agree. We rebuilt every one of the 23,760 published bracket-table cells from the guide's own annualized formula, evaluated at each bracket midpoint: all 23,760 match exactly. Running the same cells through the guide's percentage method - the per-period route printed a few pages earlier - reproduces 23,748 and misses 12 by one dollar. The cause is small and mechanical: the published per-period deduction portions are rounded ($245.19 weekly for a single filer) while the annual figure divided by 52 is $245.1923, and the final rounding to the whole dollar occasionally lands either side of the line.
Their figure: percentage method vs bracket tables: 12 of 23,760 cells differ by $1 · Per the official source: annualized method reproduces all 23,760 published cells exactly; we use it for the bracket-table range
Evidence: Measured on 2026-08-07 by parsing the official PDF: 23,760 cells compared under both published methods. A further sweep of 2.1 million wage points across every period, filing status and allowance count puts the disagreement between the two official methods at 0.063% of cases. North Carolina NC-30 (Web 11-25) · last checked 2026-08-07
2026-08-07
The second worked example computes Kentucky taxable wages of $35,640 in step 2, then writes '$35,730 x 3.5% flat tax rate = $1,247.40' in step 3. The printed result is right and the printed multiplicand is wrong: $35,640 x 3.5% = $1,247.40, while $35,730 x 3.5% would be $1,250.55. The same example then divides $1,247.40 by 26 and prints '$47', where the division gives $47.98, dropping the cents that example 1 keeps.
Their figure: step 3 multiplicand $35,730; final figure $47 · Per the official source: $35,640 x 3.5% = $1,247.40; $1,247.40 / 26 = $47.98
Evidence: Both figures appear in the same official PDF; the arithmetic supports $35,640, and example 1 of the same document carries cents ($104.65). Kentucky 42A003 (TCF)(10-2025), 2026 Kentucky Withholding Tax Formula · last checked 2026-08-07
2026-08-07
The worked example tells employers that the married semi-monthly bracket above $1,129 is '$12.19 plus 4.5%'. The rate table reproduced immediately below it on the same page says $9.10 plus 4.50%, and the example's own arithmetic uses $9.10: it adds $27.57 and $9.10 to reach $36.67, which it then rounds to $37. An employer who follows the sentence rather than the table withholds about $3 too much every pay period.
Their figure: prose: '$12.19 plus 4.5% of the net amount over $1,129.00' · Per the official source: table and arithmetic: $9.10 + 4.50% of the excess over $1,129.00, giving $36.67
Evidence: Both figures appear on page 7 of the same official PDF, and the example's own addition ($27.57 + $9.10 = $36.67) confirms which one it actually used. Oklahoma Income Tax Withholding Tables 2026, p.7 · last checked 2026-08-07
2026-08-06
Paid Leave Oregon - the 0.6% employee contribution, $450/year at $75,000 - is entirely absent from their Oregon breakdown, while smaller lines (transit tax, workers' comp) are shown.
Their figure: $0 Paid Leave Oregon on a $75,000 breakdown · Per the official source: $450/year (0.6% employee share, capped at the program wage ceiling)
Evidence: Their published $75,000 Oregon result page lists transit and workers' comp but no paid leave line. Paid Leave Oregon contribution rates · last checked 2026-08-06
2026-08-06
New Jersey program lines use outdated rates: their SDI and FLI both show $84 on $60,000 (0.14% each), while the official 2026 rates are TDI 0.19% ($114) and FLI 0.23% ($138); their UI maximum shows the prior-year cap.
Their figure: SDI $84 · FLI $84 · SUI max $169 (at $60,000) · Per the official source: TDI $114 (0.19%) · FLI $138 (0.23%) · UI+WF max $190.40 (0.425% of $44,800)
Evidence: Their published $60,000 New Jersey result vs the NJDOL 2026 rate announcement. NJDOL 2026 benefit rates press release · last checked 2026-08-06
2026-08-06
The $1,000-per-allowance New Jersey exemption is ignored: their state tax of $1,823 on $60,000 single matches the official schedule computed on the full $60,000 - to the dollar - instead of on $59,000 after the exemption.
Their figure: NJ state tax $1,823 (no exemption applied) · Per the official source: NJ state tax $1,767.25 ($1,000 exemption per NJ-W4 applied)
Evidence: Reproduced their number exactly by removing the exemption from the official formula. NJ Division of Taxation rate schedules + Form NJ-W4 · last checked 2026-08-06
2026-08-06
Oregon's federal tax subtraction - an official mechanism letting residents subtract a capped portion of federal income tax from state taxable income - is omitted by all three, overstating the Oregon tax by roughly $1,200 at $75,000 single.
Their figure: OR state tax $5,453 / $6,254 / $6,278 at $75,000 single · Per the official source: about $5,055 with the subtraction applied (capped at $8,750)
Evidence: Three published $75,000 results, all above the value produced by the official OR-40 formula with the subtraction. Oregon Withholding Tax Formulas 150-206-436 (2026) · last checked 2026-08-06
2026-08-06
The prose of Example 1 prints a base of $21,165 and a result of $1,798, while the publication's own worksheet and formula on the same page compute $21,090 and $1,789. The worksheet arithmetic is internally consistent; the prose figures are not.
Their figure: prose: base $21,165, withholding $1,798 · Per the official source: worksheet: base $21,090, withholding $1,789 (25,000 - 1,000 - 2,910 = 21,090; 941 + 0.0875 x 9,690 = 1,789)
Evidence: Both figures appear in the same official PDF; the arithmetic supports the worksheet values. Oregon Withholding Tax Formulas 150-206-436 (2026), p.5 · last checked 2026-08-06
2026-08-05
The employee share of Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave (0.46% of wages, about $11.50 per semi-monthly check at $60,000) is omitted; their deductions line stays at the bare 7.65% FICA despite being labeled "FICA and State Insurance Taxes".
Their figure: $0 PFML withheld (take-home $2,014/check at $60,000) · Per the official source: $11.50/check employee PFML premium (take-home $2,002.50 equivalent)
Evidence: Side-by-side run, $60,000 single, semi-monthly - the $13.75 take-home gap matches the omitted premium almost exactly. MA DFML 2026 contribution rates · last checked 2026-08-05
2026-08-05
The employee half of Colorado FAMLI (0.44% of wages, about $11 per semi-monthly check at $60,000) is omitted from their state insurance line.
Their figure: $0 FAMLI withheld · Per the official source: 0.44% of wages up to $184,500 (employee share of the 0.88% premium)
Evidence: Side-by-side run, $60,000 single, semi-monthly - their take-home runs high by the omitted premium. Colorado FAMLI premium rate notice · last checked 2026-08-05
2026-08-05
The 4.95% Missouri top rate still circulates widely, a leftover from an outdated schedule; Missouri's triggered cuts put the 2026 top rate at 4.7%.
Their figure: 4.95% · Per the official source: 4.7% (2026)
Evidence: Official 2026 schedule read directly (Form 4282, Revised 03-2026, withholding formula at 4.70%). Missouri Employer's Tax Guide, Form 4282 (2026) · last checked 2026-08-06
2026-08-05
A $13,000 single standard deduction for North Carolina is repeated across secondary sources; the official NC-30 for 2026 prints $12,750 (single) and $25,500 (married filing jointly).
Their figure: $13,000 / $26,000 · Per the official source: $12,750 / $25,500
Evidence: NC-30 (Web 11-25) read directly, deduction table. NC-30, 2026 Income Tax Withholding Tables and Instructions · last checked 2026-08-05
Scope and method
Entries come from our systematic external checks (documented on the methodology page): we run identical inputs through competing calculators and through the official formulas, then trace every divergence to its cause. A discrepancy is listed only when the official source settles it unambiguously. Statuses: open - still wrong as of the last check; fixed - corrected since (with date); official typo - an error inside an official publication itself, flagged for what it is; official conflict - two official publications that disagree, where neither is a slip and only one can be right; mislabelled document - a document served under another document's name, so the figure is correct but nobody can find it; incomplete official text - a publication that omits part of what it purports to reproduce, such as a consolidated statute that stops short of the paragraph in force.
When a listed party corrects a figure, we do not delete the entry - we mark it fixed and date it. The record is the point.