cadrumo.domain.contribuyente.descendant_maternity module

Art. 81 maternity contribution behavior for descendants.

class DescendantMaternityMixin(**data)[source]

Bases: DescendantRecordBase

The maternity deduction facts a descendant carries.

Parameters:

data (Any)

static art_81_1_maternity_relations(*, context)[source]

Resolve the dated Art. 81.1 relationship catalogue.

The relationship population is registry-owned. An absent, malformed, or wrong-family fact is a refusal rather than permission to fall back to a local set, because a local set would become a second legal authority.

Return type:

frozenset[DescendantRelacion]

Parameters:

context (FamilyFactResolutionContext)

maternidad_eligible_meses(filing_year, *, context)[source]

Months of filing_year the Art. 81.1 deducción may reach for this descendant.

The whole eligible window, not one limb of it: the under-three months and the adopción/acogimiento entry months together, clipped so that no month precedes the entry event.

The clip is load-bearing. The under-three limb runs from the BIRTH month for every relación, including an adopted one, so an unclipped union reaches the months before the child was the taxpayer’s: a child born in January and adopted in October yields a full twelve where three are due.

An unclipped union is defensible only on a case that does not discriminate — an infant adopted in October, argued from the claim that neither limb alone reaches twelve. That infant’s under-three limb IS twelve, so the union merely equals the wider limb there. The union exceeds the wider limb only in a year containing both the entry month and the third-birthday month, and the single month distinguishing them falls before the entry event.

Clipping is written as a clip rather than as “return the entry window”, which is what it currently reduces to: with the anchor never earlier than the birth, the two are algebraically identical today. Expressing the RULE — no month before the child was yours — keeps this correct if either limb is later widened, where the shortcut silently would not.

A descendant with no entry date is unclipped, so an ordinary child is unaffected and the method degenerates to the under-three limb.

Return type:

int

Parameters:
art_81_1_entry_window_meses(filing_year, *, context)[source]

Months of filing_year inside the Art. 81.1 adopción/acogimiento window.

A SEPARATE window from the Art. 58.2 one, and separate because the two statutes measure differently for the same child. Art. 58.2 counts whole tax PERIODS — “en el período impositivo en que se inscriba en el Registro Civil y en los dos siguientes” — so annual granularity suffices there. Art. 81.1 instead runs “durante los tres años siguientes a la FECHA de la inscripción en el Registro Civil”, and where no inscription is required, “durante los tres años posteriores a la fecha de la resolución judicial o administrativa que la declare”. That is a date, so the window opens and closes mid-year and the two disagree in BOTH directions for the same child: the entry period is granted whole by Art. 58.2 while its months before the inscription fall outside this one, and the fourth calendar year is inside this one while Art. 58.2 has already closed.

The window is age-independent — “con independencia de la edad del menor” — which is the whole point of the limb: it reaches a child adopted well after their third birthday, for whom the ordinary limb grants nothing.

Anchors on art_58_2_entry_date(), the FIRST entitling event, rather than on whichever date the record happens to carry. A fostered-then- adopted child anchored on the adoption would draw a second three-year window after the first, granting up to six years where the statute allows three. Sharing the anchor keeps the cap intact.

The entitling relación set is shared with Art. 58.2 as well, and that is a reading rather than an assumption. The two statutes enumerate differently on their face — Art. 58.2 says “acogimiento, tanto preadoptivo como permanente” while Art. 81.1 says “acogimiento permanente o delegación de guarda para la convivencia” — but the delegación de guarda IS the successor figure to the abolished acogimiento preadoptivo, so the two enumerations cover the same placements under their respective vocabularies.

Returns 0 for a relación the statutes exclude and for an entitling relación whose entry date is not yet recorded.

Return type:

int

Parameters:
maternidad_contributing_meses(filing_year, *, thresholds, context, dependencia_assimilation_available=False)[source]

Art. 81.1 months this descendant contributes to the deducción in filing_year.

The split between what the operator supplies and what the engine applies follows the statute rather than a design preference, and the two halves must not re-derive each other.

The EMPLOYMENT months are the operator’s and stay so: meses_madre_trabajo records whether the mother held contributory or assistance unemployment benefit at the birth, or Social Security / mutualidad registration with the contributed period the article requires. That is her employment history, which this application does not hold and must not infer. It is separately reported to the authority by its own informative return, so the declared figure is checkable against a record the authority already holds.

The CHILD-side condition is the engine’s, and it is the ORDINARY mínimo test rather than a bespoke one: the authority grants the deduction to women with children under three “con derecho a la aplicación del mínimo por descendientes”, so the qualifying child is defined by the predicate this record already computes — cohabitation or assimilated dependency, the Art. 58.1 rentas ceiling, and the Art. 61 norma 2ª own-return exclusion. Re-asserting it here would create a second authority for a question is_eligible_ordinary() already answers, and the two would drift the moment either statute moved.

thresholds is required for the same reason it is required there: an optional ceiling lets a caller evaluate the household limb while silently skipping the two income conditions, which inflates the deducción.

The declared months are INTERSECTED with the eligible window rather than trusted outright. An operator who declared correctly is unaffected, because their months already lie inside the window; one who declared raw employment months has the out-of-window ones removed. The intersection can only ever reduce, so it cannot invent an entitlement.

A real intersection rather than a cap on a count, and the difference is not cosmetic: a count clipped by the window’s SIZE keeps months the window does not contain, so a mother declaring months outside it kept an entitlement for months she did not qualify in. Months in, months compared, months out.

That window is _maternidad_eligible_months(), which carries both of the article’s limbs and the clip that keeps a month from preceding the entry event. It is asked for rather than recomposed here: the window is one rule with one owner, and a second assembly of it at a call site drifts from the first without any gate noticing.

The relación gate is SEPARATE from the mínimo test and runs first. Both are necessary and neither implies the other: Art. 58.1 assimilates temporal acogimiento while Art. 81.1 excludes it outright, so gating only on entitlement to the mínimo granted a temporal carer a full twelve months the authority refuses. Reading the dated registry relationship catalogue rather than restating membership keeps the three populations on this axis distinct, which is the property whose loss produced that defect.

Return type:

int

Parameters:
art_81_1_maternity_relations(*, context)[source]

Resolve the dated Art. 81.1 relationship population from authority.

Return type:

frozenset[DescendantRelacion]

Parameters:

context (FamilyFactResolutionContext)

relacion_is_ambiguous_for_maternidad(relacion)[source]

Whether a declared relación cannot distinguish an Art. 81.1 child from a mínimo-only descendant.

DESCENDIENTE is the ONLY ambiguous value, and for ONE remaining population: a grandchild or other descendant by consanguinidad other than a child, whom the AEAT manual documents as mínimo-eligible under Art. 58.1 while excluding them from Art. 81.1. The axis has no member for them, so a filer with such a child has no truthful value but DESCENDIENTE. That is also the value a filer with a genuine hijo gets by never being asked, since the fact is never written for the default even when the operator typed it explicitly. The two are indistinguishable at the stored fact, which is the whole reason a notice exists rather than a refusal.

Both sites used to name a SECOND population here – a minor held under guarda y custodia by judicial resolución – and both were out of date. The judicial-guard relationship is represented by its own dated registry token and is excluded by the Art. 81.1 registry catalogue, so they can state their relationship truthfully and the deducción already does not reach them. The behaviour was right; the reasoning beside it was written twice and neither copy followed the axis when it gained the member. Stating it once is what surfaced that.

Asked in two places, at two different moments: the declaration surface warns the operator as they type, and the calculate path catches an already-stored row, including one declared before the notice existed. Each keeps its own months gate – declared months at declaration time, contributing months at calculate time – because those genuinely differ. What must not differ is which relación is ambiguous, and that lived as a repeated the ordinary descendant token at both sites with the reasoning restated beside each. A member added to the axis for either population would have had to reach both.

Return type:

bool

Parameters:

relacion (DescendantRelacion)