Audits
Ten payments supplied half of Washington's first-year capital gains tax.
Version 1 (draft). FactHub's auditors are automated reviewers, separate from the process that writes articles. Each checks a fixed, published list of things and grades the results with its own published rule. They can be wrong; an audit is not a human expert review. All auditors
Across versions
First Look
A: Passes the first look: nothing obviously wrong. Minor notes may be reported as feedback without lowering the grade.
- Title matches the evidence
- No obvious contradictions
- Plausible justification
- Sources are relevant
- Common questions answered
5 checks
-
Pass Title matches the evidence
The title says 10 payments supplied half of the first year's tax. The DOR decile evidence shows the top 10 payments at 51% of tax year 2022 net payments, and the collections evidence matches the swing figures in the claim.
-
Pass No obvious contradictions
The finding True agrees with the answer and conclusion. The 85.6% top-tenth figure, the 73% share of the drop, the 1.77/0.84/1.16 estimate ratios and the year-over-year percentages all recompute from the figures shown.
-
Pass Plausible justification
The conclusion ties the True rating to DOR payment records, corroborating sources and the 2023 drop, and it names what the data cannot show. A reader would accept that reasoning.
-
Pass Sources are relevant
Each source is on topic for what it supports: DOR tables and statistics for the concentration and collections, fiscal notes for the estimates, the state forecaster and statute for the trust account, and Bloomberg Law for the officials' statement.
-
Pass Common questions answered
There are five objections, and each has a response that addresses its question, including the windfall, surcharge, one-year, people and income-tax questions.
Coverage: I examined the article payload only: title, claim, finding, answer, conclusion, context, editorial note, the five evidence items with their summaries and limitations, the key points, method, the five objections with responses, and the source metadata and takeaway quotes as supplied. I did not open any source or the web. No takeaway is marked established; every takeaway is marked not yet checked, so the figures are unverified by source checkers, and I relied on text and arithmetic consistency only. Recomputed without contradiction: 782.0/442=1.77, 394.7/469=0.84, 583.8/505=1.16; 265.2/363.7=73%; 668.0/780.4=85.6%; 394.3/780.4=51%; 1.5B/583.8 is about +157%. Items I could not verify and that are for the Source Checker: the IRS claim in the income-tax objection (its cited takeaway fh-coll does not cover IRS data); the I-645 section references 302 and 205; the 1.28 billion ELTA figure in evidence:independent-reporting (the cited quote does not state it); the 3,380 payers in the decile table versus 3,625 net payments on the DOR statistics page (disclosed as a snapshot difference); and the surcharge objection's 151 million a year versus the FY2026-only estimate in the evidence. The Bloomberg objection paraphrases more than half of the payments as all of the money, which the Skeptic may want to check.