[lmi-commits] [5390] Mark some taxation issues

[Greg Chicares]

Revision: 5390
          http://svn.sv.gnu.org/viewvc/?view=rev&root=lmi&revision=5390
Author:   chicares
Date:     2012-02-05 03:42:24 +0000 (Sun, 05 Feb 2012)
Log Message:
-----------
Mark some taxation issues

Modified Paths:
--------------
    lmi/trunk/ihs_acctval.cpp
    lmi/trunk/ihs_basicval.cpp
    lmi/trunk/ihs_irc7702a.cpp
    lmi/trunk/mec_server.cpp

Modified: lmi/trunk/ihs_acctval.cpp
===================================================================
--- lmi/trunk/ihs_acctval.cpp   2012-01-31 13:39:28 UTC (rev 5389)
+++ lmi/trunk/ihs_acctval.cpp   2012-02-05 03:42:24 UTC (rev 5390)
@@ -904,6 +904,8 @@
     PremiumTax_->start_new_year();
     // Skip this in an incomplete initial inforce year.
     // TAXATION !! Premium tax should perhaps be handled similarly.
+    // TAXATION !! For 7702A, some rates change on policy anniversary
+    // because age does, but cum 7pp changes on contract anniversary.
     if(Year != InforceYear || 0 == InforceMonth)
         {
         Irc7702_ ->UpdateBOY7702();

Modified: lmi/trunk/ihs_basicval.cpp
===================================================================
--- lmi/trunk/ihs_basicval.cpp  2012-01-31 13:39:28 UTC (rev 5389)
+++ lmi/trunk/ihs_basicval.cpp  2012-02-05 03:42:24 UTC (rev 5390)
@@ -449,11 +449,16 @@
 ///   - GLP and GSP premium and specamt strategies are always offered;
 ///   - at least one known product uses GLP as a handy proxy for a
 ///     minimum no-lapse premium, even when the GPT is not elected.
+/// TAXATION !! OTOH, such strategies need not always be offered, and
+/// the cited product's implementation actually uses 7pp, not GLP.
 ///
 /// To conform to the practices of certain admin systems, DCV COI
 /// rates are stored in a rounded table, but calculations from first
 /// principles (GLP, GSP, 7PP, e.g.) use unrounded monthly rates;
 /// thus, necessary premium uses both. But this is immaterial.
+/// TAXATION !! DATABASE !! The database should offer rounding
+/// options; and should this comment be moved to the TUs that
+/// implement taxation?
 
 void BasicValues::Init7702()
 {

Modified: lmi/trunk/ihs_irc7702a.cpp
===================================================================
--- lmi/trunk/ihs_irc7702a.cpp  2012-01-31 13:39:28 UTC (rev 5389)
+++ lmi/trunk/ihs_irc7702a.cpp  2012-02-05 03:42:24 UTC (rev 5390)
@@ -339,7 +339,10 @@
 /// Update cumulative 7pp.
 ///
 /// Called at beginning of each policy year. TODO ?? TAXATION !! No, that's
-/// wrong if contract year and policy year don't coincide.
+/// wrong if contract year and policy year don't coincide; however, it is
+/// correct to update Ax on policy anniversary, though the things done here
+/// that are appropriately done on policy anniversary are not necessarily
+/// needful.
 
 void Irc7702A::UpdateBOY7702A(int a_PolicyYear)
 {

Modified: lmi/trunk/mec_server.cpp
===================================================================
--- lmi/trunk/mec_server.cpp    2012-01-31 13:39:28 UTC (rev 5389)
+++ lmi/trunk/mec_server.cpp    2012-02-05 03:42:24 UTC (rev 5390)
@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@
 
     z.Initialize7702A
         (false       // a_Ignore
-        ,InforceIsMec
+        ,InforceIsMec // TAXATION !! also use 1035-is-mec fields?
         ,input.issue_age()
         ,input.maturity_age()
         ,InforceYear
@@ -339,7 +339,7 @@
     if(0.0 != total_1035_amount)
         {
         z.Update1035Exch7702A
-            (InforceDcv
+            (InforceDcv // TAXATION !! Assert that this is zero?
             ,total_1035_amount
             ,old_benefit_amount
             );