They seem to be looking at their fiscal year, and the mere fact that now, all these months later, they also know the incremental number of filers, which is another data point showing the "apples and oranges" nature of what you are trying to do to make your point, doesn't mean anything.

And to be clear, all you are doing is refuting Balz's fiscal vs calendar year point, which has nothing to do with my point. It was just another mitigating factor. That said, I think it is far more likely that Balz is right, given that they show the IRS fiscal 2018 Data Report as their backup. I will say that the article itself is vague about exactly what comprises the year in question.

But get off that, which is really a fairly minor detail in terms of my point - if there were a million more jobs on a weighted average basis throughout 2018 than throughout 2017, then your comparison is apples to oranges, unless you want to try to assert that those million more jobs only happened because of Trump tax reform. If we assume they mostly would have happened anyway, your math mostly only proves that employment was higher.
[Post edited by hoolstoptheheels at 06/10/2019 3:31PM]