How to apply normal rounding convention

[beepyoyo-sbcglob]

The California PTE election requires that a partnership pay a tax equal to 9.3% of its income. In my case that yields, for example,  $100.66, so, applying the standard rounding convention I want to round up to show $101 needing to be paid. However, the form in ProConnect (Calif. Form 3304) automatically multiples the income that I input by 9.3% and shows $100 of tax.  In other words, the software rounds down. How do I override that?

[qbteachmt]

The software typically starts the rounding early in the computations, but you likely only rounded your final result. For reference, "standard" tax rounding, amounts should be rounded to the nearest whole dollar by dropping amounts under 50 cents and increasing amounts from 50 to 99 cents to the next dollar. For example, $2.30 becomes $2 and $2.50 becomes $3. I don't think a difference under a dollar or two will be an issue. It never has with payroll, which has rounding drift (not rounding errors) every pay cycle.

[beepyoyo-sbcglob]

Thanks for your response. Not sure what you mean by "the software typically starts the rounding early in the computations."  To be more specific regarding my issue: I'm preparing a California LLC return, i.e, an LLC treated as a partnership.  The entity is making the pass-through tax election for all partners, requiring the entity to make a 9.3% state tax payment. In looking at Form 3804, Line 1 enters $107,362 of income, which is the amount of income I entered in the software. Line 2 has "9.3%" printed on the form. Line 3 shows the product of lines 1 and 2. When multiplying these numbers, I get $9,884.66.  Thus, I want Line 3 to show $9,885.  However, it shows $9,984.  In other words, the software misapplies the normal rounding convention, and I'm trying to figure out how to override the error.  (This may seem like a minor issue but I want to make sure the tax authority doesn't determine that the entity underpaid by $1 and therefore can't use the election. To be on the safe side I want to round up per the normal convention.)

[qbteachmt]

"Not sure what you mean by "the software typically starts the rounding early in the computations." "

Take a look at that instruction:

Line 1: Total qualified net income from all qualified taxpayers (combine all box a amounts from the Schedule of Qualified Taxpayers below, Side 2, and any additional pages).

Also, each partner section has their own line b:

b. Elective tax credit amount (Multiply box a by 9.3% and enter the result.).

That's exactly the issue I brought up, and why the State won't bother with a couple of dollars of rounding drift. We don't know this programming, but I know programming and I know drift. Let's review why they have set up the discrepancy with this form.

You enter each taxpayer's amount at the Scheduled details, and the 9.3% is applied there. See what sort of non-whole dollars you get. See what each has for the least significant decimal you get.

Then add up the "raw" data from that Schedule (each partner). Go out to as many decimals as you want to consider.

Then, do the math for the top section as you stated: total income and multiply by the 9.3% here.

This is why your own calculations and the software will differ. It's called Drift, not Error, because Drift is the accumulative difference. It's not an error. It's Mathing just fine. Let me offer an example:

If you have 6 people at, for an example, $222 each, that total = $1332, * 9.3% = $123.876, which rounds up to $124. This is your Top Section. That's the Partnership perspective.

Also, though, on this form, for each partner in the second section: $222 * 9.3% each = $20.646, which rounds up $21, and then $21 * 6 = $126. That's the math when you carry the already-rounded amount to the top section.This is the Partner perspective.

$2 Drift.

[beepyoyo-sbcglob]

as I understand your approach, you'd start at the partners level, and then cumulate the partner amounts to come up with the entries at the partnership level to put in the top boxes on the form.  Isn't the problem that the software does the opposite - calculates the total income and tax to be paid at the partnership level and then allocates among the partners based on their percentage interests? So don't I have to come up with the correct amounts at the partnership level before I allocate among the partners?

[qbteachmt]

"as I understand your approach, you'd start at the partners level,"

I was explaining why numbers don't need to exactly match. Until USA follows Canada in eliminating pennies, you have a number you verified just fine.

"So don't I have to come up with the correct amounts at the partnership level before I allocate among the partners?"

Isn't that what you bought the software to do for you? There is a rule: Close enough. I was pointing out why even that form might not agree among itself.