Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I want to create a statement to calculate appropriate federal tax withholding
amounts based on gross income, which varies each pay period. The federal tax tables specify minimum & maximum salary ranges, a withholding allowance, multiplier percentages and a fixed withholding amount for each set of calculations. For example, a formula for an income figure between $389.00 and $1289.00 in a pay period would be (assuming the gross income figure is in cell D6): =((D6-130.77)-389)*.15+28.70 For an income figure between $1289.00 and $2964.00 in a pay period, the formula would be: =((D6-130.77)-1289)*.25+163.70 For an income figure between $2964.00 and $6262.00 in a pay period, the formula would be: =((D6-130.77)-2964)*.28+582.45 Now...how do I pull these all together into one statment that will look at the gross income figure in cell D6 and produce the correct withholding figure in another cell? (I currently use Excel 2000.) Whew! Thanks... -- - Clint Johnson |
#2
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 8, 3:56 pm, clintjjohnson wrote:
I want to create a statement to calculate appropriate federal tax withholding amounts based on gross income [....] Now...how do I pull these all together into one statment that will look at the gross income figure in cell D6 and produce the correct withholding figure There are many ways to do this, each with their pros and cons. Ostensibly (based on the table for Biweekly Single, which are the numbers that you used): =round(max((D6-102)*10%, (D6-389)*15%+28.70, (D6-1289)*25%+163.70, (D6-2964)*28%+582.45, (D6-6262)*33%+1505.89, (D6-13525)*35%+3902.68), 2) However, note that D6 is the amount subject to withholding, which is the gross wages less pretax deductions and the withholding allowance. If D4 is the gross wages less pretax deductions and D5 is the number of allowances, D6 would be: =D4 - 130.77*D5 |
#3
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thank you, that does the trick - being totally unfamiliar with just how those
functions work, I'm amazed... <g I really appreciate your reply. This will be used for only one "employee", there are no pretax deductions and the withholding allowance will not change from the fixed "130.77" figure. I've changed the formula slightly to accomodate this (where 130.77 is in cell F6): ((D6-F6-102)*10%... One further tweak would be nice - how do I prevent it from displaying anything in its cell if D6 (the gross income) is empty? -- - Clint Johnson "joeu2004" wrote: On Jul 8, 3:56 pm, clintjjohnson wrote: I want to create a statement to calculate appropriate federal tax withholding amounts based on gross income [....] Now...how do I pull these all together into one statment that will look at the gross income figure in cell D6 and produce the correct withholding figure There are many ways to do this, each with their pros and cons. Ostensibly (based on the table for Biweekly Single, which are the numbers that you used): =round(max((D6-102)*10%, (D6-389)*15%+28.70, (D6-1289)*25%+163.70, (D6-2964)*28%+582.45, (D6-6262)*33%+1505.89, (D6-13525)*35%+3902.68), 2) However, note that D6 is the amount subject to withholding, which is the gross wages less pretax deductions and the withholding allowance. If D4 is the gross wages less pretax deductions and D5 is the number of allowances, D6 would be: =D4 - 130.77*D5 |
#4
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 8, 7:10 pm, clintjjohnson wrote:
I've changed the formula slightly to accomodate this (where 130.77 is in cell F6): ((D6-F6-102)*10%... Yes, that works. But it is "inefficient" because you must do D6-F6 in so many places. Then again, in a small worksheet, it is unlikely that you will notice the extra microseconds (or multi-nanoseconds) on today's fast CPUs. So whatever seems clearer and easier for you is the thing to do. One further tweak would be nice - how do I prevent it from displaying anything in its cell if D6 (the gross income) is empty? =if(D6="", "", round(max(...),2)) |
#5
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sun, 8 Jul 2007 19:10:01 -0700 from clintjjohnson
: One further tweak would be nice - how do I prevent it from displaying anything in its cell if D6 (the gross income) is empty? =if(D6, ..., "") where ... is the actual formula. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/ |
#6
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:56:01 -0700 from clintjjohnson
: Now...how do I pull these all together into one statment that will look at the gross income figure in cell D6 and produce the correct withholding figure in another cell? (I currently use Excel 2000.) You *could* do it with an if statement, but I wouldn't. Instead, set up the withholding table in three columns (min income, fixed dollars to withhold, percent above min to withhold) and then use VLOOKUP. Assuming the income figure is in D6, this formula will do it: ROUND(VLOOKUP(D6,FederalTaxBrackets,3,TRUE)+VLOOKU P (D6,FederalTaxBrackets,2,TRUE)*(D6-VLOOKUP (D6,FederalTaxBrackets,1,TRUE)),2) where FederalTaxBrackets is the named range that includes the table I mentioned above. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/ |
#7
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:56:01 -0700, clintjjohnson
wrote: I want to create a statement to calculate appropriate federal tax withholding amounts based on gross income, which varies each pay period. The federal tax tables specify minimum & maximum salary ranges, a withholding allowance, multiplier percentages and a fixed withholding amount for each set of calculations. For example, a formula for an income figure between $389.00 and $1289.00 in a pay period would be (assuming the gross income figure is in cell D6): =((D6-130.77)-389)*.15+28.70 For an income figure between $1289.00 and $2964.00 in a pay period, the formula would be: =((D6-130.77)-1289)*.25+163.70 For an income figure between $2964.00 and $6262.00 in a pay period, the formula would be: =((D6-130.77)-2964)*.28+582.45 Now...how do I pull these all together into one statment that will look at the gross income figure in cell D6 and produce the correct withholding figure in another cell? (I currently use Excel 2000.) Whew! Thanks... There are basically sixteen different percentage withholding tables to select from. (Eight different payroll periods divided into Single and Married tables). You quoted some figures from the Single/Biweekly Payroll period so I'll use those. (You can download an Excel spreadsheet from www.irs.gov with all the tables in it). Set up a table someplace on your worksheet: $ 0 $ 0.00 0% $ 102 $ 0.00 10% $ 389 $ 28.70 15% $ 1,289 $ 163.70 25% $ 2,964 $ 582.45 28% $ 6,262 $1,505.89 33% $13,525 $3,902.68 35% I named it BiWeeklySingle You obviously know that the withholding allowance amount for this table is $130.77 You can use this formula: =VLOOKUP(GrossIncome,BiWeeklySingle,2)+ (GrossIncome-VLOOKUP(GrossIncome,BiWeeklySingle,1))* VLOOKUP(GrossIncome,BiWeeklySingle,3) except that in place of GrossIncome you will need to substitute GrossIncome minus 130.77 * the number of withholding allowances. --ron |
#8
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 8, 5:49 pm, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
Set up a table someplace on your worksheet: I agree that the table lookup method is easier to change later. But the trick is to understand the tax tables well enough to set up the table correctly. $ 0 $ 0.00 0% $ 102 $ 0.00 10% $ 389 $ 28.70 15% $ 1,289 $ 163.70 25% $ 2,964 $ 582.45 28% $ 6,262 $1,505.89 33% $13,525 $3,902.68 35% [....] You can use this formula: =VLOOKUP(GrossIncome,BiWeeklySingle,2)+ (GrossIncome-VLOOKUP(GrossIncome,BiWeeklySingle,1))* VLOOKUP(GrossIncome,BiWeeklySingle,3) Technically, your formula does not follow the logic of the tax tables. For example, it should assess 10% tax only on the amount __over__ $102, whereas your formula ostensibly assesses 10% tax on the amount equal to $102. (But not really. Continue reading....) Of course, your formula works for the federal tables because the tax computed for the lowest limit of one tax bracket is the same amount computed for the highest limit of the previous tax bracket. For example, (389-389)*15%+28.70, which your formula computes, is the same as (389-102)*10%, which is the correct formula to use. (And (102-102)*10% is the same as (102-0)*0%.) IMHO (and I'm sure you would agree), that should be true of any "reasonable" tax table. So it is easy to become complacent. But a year or two ago, I discovered that the Georgia tables did not have that nice property. Arrgghh! Since then, I have been careful to ensure that the lookup table follows the logic of the tax tables to the letter. This makes the lookup table slightly more complicated and a tad error-prone to set up. (For the same reason, I eschew formulas that rely on the "delta percentages" between the tax brackets, including those formulas that I promoted in the past.) |
#9
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:18:20 -0700, joeu2004 wrote:
On Jul 8, 5:49 pm, Ron Rosenfeld wrote: Set up a table someplace on your worksheet: I agree that the table lookup method is easier to change later. But the trick is to understand the tax tables well enough to set up the table correctly. $ 0 $ 0.00 0% $ 102 $ 0.00 10% $ 389 $ 28.70 15% $ 1,289 $ 163.70 25% $ 2,964 $ 582.45 28% $ 6,262 $1,505.89 33% $13,525 $3,902.68 35% [....] You can use this formula: =VLOOKUP(GrossIncome,BiWeeklySingle,2)+ (GrossIncome-VLOOKUP(GrossIncome,BiWeeklySingle,1))* VLOOKUP(GrossIncome,BiWeeklySingle,3) Technically, your formula does not follow the logic of the tax tables. For example, it should assess 10% tax only on the amount __over__ $102, whereas your formula ostensibly assesses 10% tax on the amount equal to $102. (But not really. Continue reading....) Of course, your formula works for the federal tables because the tax computed for the lowest limit of one tax bracket is the same amount computed for the highest limit of the previous tax bracket. For example, (389-389)*15%+28.70, which your formula computes, is the same as (389-102)*10%, which is the correct formula to use. (And (102-102)*10% is the same as (102-0)*0%.) IMHO (and I'm sure you would agree), that should be true of any "reasonable" tax table. So it is easy to become complacent. But a year or two ago, I discovered that the Georgia tables did not have that nice property. Arrgghh! Since then, I have been careful to ensure that the lookup table follows the logic of the tax tables to the letter. This makes the lookup table slightly more complicated and a tad error-prone to set up. (For the same reason, I eschew formulas that rely on the "delta percentages" between the tax brackets, including those formulas that I promoted in the past.) The formula I wrote was designed to work with the Federal tax tables using the logic with which they were constructed. It was NOT designed to also work with the Georgia tax tables, or the NH tax tables, or any number of other untested tables which may have been constructed using a different logic. --ron |
#10
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 9, 3:13 am, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
The formula I wrote was designed to work with the Federal tax tables using the logic with which they were constructed. First, I freely admit that my comments were pedantic and much ado about nothing. But since you take issue with them, I feel compelled to elaborate. Technically, your design (table and formula) does not follow the logic of even the federal tables. By that I mean, for example, the federal tables applies the 15% tax bracket only if the taxable income is __over__ $389. But your design applies the 15% tax bracket if the taxable income is __equal_to__ (or over) $389. Nonetheless, as I noted previously, your design does work by accident of implementation -- an "accident" that is very reasonable to expect, I might add. By that I mean, for example, figuring the tax on $389 using the 15% bracket arrives at the same result as it would by using the 10% bracket, as you should have. So again, much ado about nothing. |
#11
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 07:17:19 -0700, joeu2004 wrote:
So again, much ado about nothing. Since the results of our differing interpretations result in the same output, and since you admit it to be much ado about nothing ... well, nuff said. --ron |
#12
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:18:20 -0700, joeu2004 wrote:
Of course, your formula works for the federal tables because the tax computed for the lowest limit of one tax bracket is the same amount computed for the highest limit of the previous tax bracket. For example, (389-389)*15%+28.70, which your formula computes, is the same as (389-102)*10%, which is the correct formula to use. (And (102-102)*10% is the same as (102-0)*0%.) IMHO (and I'm sure you would agree), that should be true of any "reasonable" tax table. So it is easy to become complacent. But a year or two ago, I discovered that the Georgia tables did not have that nice property. Arrgghh! I just looked at the Georgia Tax Rate Schedule for 2006 and your notion that it is constructed differently then the Federal Tax Table does not seem to be the case. What am I missing? Single $- $- 1% $750.00 $7.50 2% $2,250.00 $37.50 3% $3,750.00 $82.50 4% $5,250.00 $142.50 5% $7,000.00 $230.00 6% MFJ or HoH $- $- 1% $1,000.00 $10.00 2% $3,000.00 $50.00 3% $5,000.00 $110.00 4% $7,000.00 $190.00 5% $10,000.00 $340.00 6% MFS $- $- 1% $500.00 $5.00 2% $1,500.00 $25.00 3% $2,500.00 $55.00 4% $3,500.00 $95.00 5% $5,000.00 $170.00 6% --ron |
#13
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 9, 3:31 am, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:18:20 -0700, joeu2004 wrote: But a year or two ago, I discovered that the Georgia tables did not have that nice property. Arrgghh! I just looked at the Georgia Tax Rate Schedule for 2006 and your notion that it is constructed differently then the Federal Tax Table does not seem to be the case. What am I missing? Probably nothing. First, I did say that my observation was "a year or two ago". Since the earlier tables were screwed up (IMHO), it would not surprise me if they were an anomaly that has been corrected. (I asked about a correction at the time, but I never got a response, as I recall.) Second -- and I hate to admit this -- I probably should have said "one state's tables" instead of "Georgia's tables". I am "pretty sure" it was indeed Georgia; but my recollection could be wrong. Moreover, I cannot remember if they were withholding tables or actual tax tables. I posted something about this in misc.taxes.moderated at the time. But it is too difficult to find it now (sigh). Finally, I did not say that the state table was "constructed differently". Superficially, it looked the same. The devil was in the details. First, as I recall, the columns were labeled ambiguously -- not "over" and "not over", but "is" and "not over". Thus, two brackets would seem to apply to the boundary amount. Second -- and this is the kicker -- the amount added was not always the cumulative tax based on applying the earlier marginal rates. Sometimes it was; sometimes it was higher; sometimes it was lower. Of course, the difference was very small; you would notice it only if you bothered to check. (I checked only because of the ambiguous labeling of the columns, which caught my attention.) So again, much ado about nothing. |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi Clint,
It sounds like you're trying to create a formula that will calculate the appropriate federal tax withholding amount based on the gross income figure in cell D6. You've already figured out the formulas for each income range, so now we just need to combine them into one formula using IF statements. Here's how you can do it:
__________________
I am not human. I am an Excel Wizard |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Income tax withholding tables in Excel? | Setting up and Configuration of Excel | |||
Federal and Private Student Loan Consolidation Programs | Excel Worksheet Functions | |||
federal tax tables | Excel Worksheet Functions | |||
Formula to calculate federal income tax | Excel Discussion (Misc queries) | |||
How can I use Excel XP to track Federal/State/Private Grants? | New Users to Excel |