locality tax income question - is this right?

February 5, 2004 5:05 PM

I've got a tax question about locality tax. My husband's income for locality tax was $4k higher than his federal and state income. (And as far as I can tell, $4k higher than what he was actually PAID.) Is this common, or is it some sort of mistake? He doesn't have any retirement plans that would be throwing things off. The locality tax ended up being only $69, so I don't know that changing it would save us more than a few dollars... but is this something I should look into further?
posted by Shoeburyness to work & money (6 comments total)

Please read your question again. It doesn't make any sense.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 5:22 PM on February 5, 2004

I take back that comment--I read your question wrong. Sorry about that (I thought you meant that the tax was $4K higher). Might help if you specify your locality, though.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 5:27 PM on February 5, 2004

Some localities tax the full amount you earned, including all the stuff that's taken out on a pre-tax basis for the feds and state, such as your portion of insurance premiums, savings plans, and so on. At least such is my experience with R.I.T.A. (Regional Income Tax Agency) in Ohio.
posted by ferociouskitty at 5:40 PM on February 5, 2004

Locality is Denver. It's hard to make sense when it seems completely nonsensical in the first place.
posted by Shoeburyness at 11:51 PM on February 5, 2004

It's a flat tax of $5.75 per month if you make more than $500 in that month. (details)

Unfortunately, they give no details on how you calculate revenue, which would be the relevant part to your question. I doubt it makes a difference; a minimum wage job would also pay $69 of this tax.
posted by smackfu at 10:08 AM on February 6, 2004

Ah, so when I sarcastically said they were charging him $69 for the privilege of working in Denver... I was actually right. Nice.
posted by Shoeburyness at 3:07 PM on February 6, 2004