Inside TurboTax's 20-Year Fight to Stop Americans From Filing Their Taxes for Free (propublica.org) 218
This year, nearly 40% of U.S. taxpayers filed online and some 40 million of them did so with TurboTax, far more than with any other product. But the success of TurboTax rests on a shaky foundation, one that could collapse overnight if the U.S. government did what most wealthy countries did long ago and made tax filing simple and free for most citizens. From a report: For more than 20 years, Intuit -- the developer of TurboTax, has waged a sophisticated, sometimes covert war to prevent the government from doing just that, according to internal company and IRS documents and interviews with insiders. The company unleashed a battalion of lobbyists and hired top officials from the agency that regulates it. From the beginning, Intuit recognized that its success depended on two parallel missions: stoking innovation in Silicon Valley while stifling it in Washington. Indeed, employees ruefully joke that the company's motto should actually be "compromise without integrity." Internal presentations lay out company tactics for fighting "encroachment," Intuit's catchall term for any government initiative to make filing taxes easier -- such as creating a free government filing system or pre-filling people's returns with payroll or other data the IRS already has. "For a decade proposals have sought to create IRS tax software or a ReturnFree Tax System; All were stopped," reads a confidential 2007 PowerPoint presentation from an Intuit board of directors meeting. The company's 2014-15 plan included manufacturing "3rd-party grass roots" support. "Buy ads for op-eds/editorials/stories in African American and Latino media," one internal PowerPoint slide states.
The centerpiece of Intuit's anti-encroachment strategy has been the Free File program, hatched 17 years ago in a moment of crisis for the company. Under the terms of an agreement with the federal government, Intuit and other commercial tax prep companies promised to provide free online filing to tens of millions of lower-income taxpayers. In exchange, the IRS pledged not to create a government-run system. Since Free File's launch, Intuit has done everything it could to limit the program's reach while making sure the government stuck to its end of the deal. As ProPublica has reported, Intuit added code to the Free File landing page of TurboTax that hid it from search engines like Google, making it harder for would-be users to find.
The centerpiece of Intuit's anti-encroachment strategy has been the Free File program, hatched 17 years ago in a moment of crisis for the company. Under the terms of an agreement with the federal government, Intuit and other commercial tax prep companies promised to provide free online filing to tens of millions of lower-income taxpayers. In exchange, the IRS pledged not to create a government-run system. Since Free File's launch, Intuit has done everything it could to limit the program's reach while making sure the government stuck to its end of the deal. As ProPublica has reported, Intuit added code to the Free File landing page of TurboTax that hid it from search engines like Google, making it harder for would-be users to find.
Strange (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Strange (Score:5, Insightful)
Remove money from politics.
Make these congress and senate folks actually represent the people.
End bribes (sorry, lobbying) and the problem solves itself. ... and Obligatory: Fuck Intuit. The IRS already has the vast majority of data on most tax payers. This kind of thing should have been done long ago, to say nothing of the state of technology now. Make it scalable, make it secure, done.
Re:Strange (Score:5, Informative)
In Poland in 1920s we had a law:
Dz.U. 1921 nr.30 poz.177 (also Dz.U. 1920 nr.11 poz.61): Art.2: An official, guilty of accepting a gift or another material benefit, or a promise thereof, [in matters relevant to duties], shall be punished by death by shooting.
Obviously, this law is long gone, but you really should copy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? +1 in favor
I've long thought that any corruption by public officials should be considered treason, and that sounds like it would essentially get the same result.
Re:Strange (Score:5, Insightful)
Only billionaires could run (Score:3, Insightful)
> A public official who shapes public policy to benefit a donor has essentially sold something they don't own and personally gained from that sale. Prison time and substantial forfeiture of personal assets should be a minimum.
Sounds great! On first reading. Now how do you actually implement this as law?
Point 1
Would you donate to candidates who plan to do things that will hurt you? Of course not. You'd only donate to candidates who will do things that benefit you. So if you ban donations from people
Ps - the good news (Score:3)
I suggested that trying to make it so that influential, powerful people don't have a lot of influence in politics is a losing battle. That might sound depressing. There IS a silver lining. There is some good news there.
Once upon a time I was homeless. I became homeless by making bad decisions, repeatedly.
Once upon a time Steve Job was rich. He got rich by making a bunch of really good decisions.
Oprah Winfrey, once a pregnant, destitute 14yo negro in the 1960s, got really rich by making 50 years of real
Re: (Score:3)
Except Bill Gates and other "rags to riches" stories are the the exception, not the rule. They're also based
The way it is the wealthy steadily change the rules to make it easier for the wealthy to accumulate and retain wealth and power. Which necessarily means that they make it more difficult for the competent to gain wealth and power in the next generation - because they're competing against the wealthy, powerful children of competent people. We've been down this road. Repeatedly. It always ends up In
Re: (Score:3)
So, tell us more about this law.
Re:Strange (Score:4, Informative)
In Poland in 1920s we had a law: Dz.U. 1921 nr.30 poz.177 (also Dz.U. 1920 nr.11 poz.61): Art.2: An official, guilty of accepting a gift or another material benefit, or a promise thereof, [in matters relevant to duties], shall be punished by death by shooting. Obviously, this law is long gone, but you really should copy it.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
There is the alternative. One of the most powerful empires in history - the Osman Empire prospered after Mehmed Second the Conqueror stopped all civil servant salaries and made them put an official list with their rushvets (translates from Turkish as bribe) on their door. Shortly after that his army successfully conquered quarter of the European continent.
Re: (Score:2)
Remove money from politics.
Make these congress and senate folks actually represent the people.
End bribes (sorry, lobbying) and the problem solves itself. ... and Obligatory: Fuck Intuit. The IRS already has the vast majority of data on most tax payers. This kind of thing should have been done long ago, to say nothing of the state of technology now. Make it scalable, make it secure, done.
American Capitalist Party: "You can try but we will stop you." Worked for 20 years so far, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Remove money from politics.
Make these congress and senate folks actually represent the people.
If only it were that easy. This is the same kind of wishful thinking as abstinence-only sex education or just making drugs illegal so that people stop using them. As long as political office allows for individuals to wield large amounts of power, people with impure motives will seek it out to use it for their own ends.
Further if you remove money from politics, you're essentially saying that no one is allowed to donate to candidates. Now you've all but ensured that only those who are independently wealthy
Re: (Score:2)
I find this idea interesting:
Further if you remove money from politics, you're essentially saying that no one is allowed to donate to candidates. Now you've all but ensured that only those who are independently wealthy or have connections will be able to run for office.
It's looking ahead at the unintended consequences of how a law may be interpreted. Good job!
I'm totally with you when you say:
If you want to make people more representative of the electorate, we need a large number of people in Congress because there's no way that 538 people can represent a nation of 300 million and growing. Drastically increase the number of representatives so that each represents a smaller group of people
Congress stopped growing a century ago, and for a while it was ok, not great but still ok, but we've been losing a lot of effective representation for decades now. It's putting a hurt on our democracy because now only rich individuals can "speak" loudly enough to be heard above the din of each representative's constituency. We need smaller districts.
Improve but not solve (Score:2)
End bribes (sorry, lobbying) and the problem solves itself.
That is easier said than done though. You have to allow individuals to be able to talk to their representatives so that they can raise concerns and problems that should be addressed. Once you allow that then companies are going to twist that into gaining access to politicians because while individuals cannot afford teams of lawyers to pick apart the rules they can. So while you can certainly improve the situation by changing the rules this is never going to completely solve the problem. The only way you ca
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Canada is the government (ultimately the Prime Minister) that generally decides which laws go to a vote (except private member bills, which are limited in scope), rather then the relatively less known congressional leaders.
Re:Strange (Score:5, Informative)
There's a reason the NRA (to give a classic example) doesn't give a lot of money to Democratic politicians (in general), and gives money to Republicans who have never done anything on the issue
The NRA does not have power because of its donations to politicians. It has power because it has convinced a large voting bloc to become single issue voters. It doesn't matter if 89% of Americans want expanded background checks for gun purchases. It matters how many of them make their voting decisions (and especially votes in primaries) based on that issue.
The number of people who say "I don't like most of the liberal agenda but I refuse to vote for someone who blocks gun control legislation" is apparently quite small. The number of people who say "I think Trump is deplorable but at least he won't take away my guns" is apparently much larger.
The NRA turns out voters, which is still more powerful than campaign contributions.
Re: (Score:3)
The NRA does not have power because of its donations to politicians. It has power because it has convinced a large voting bloc to become single issue voters. It doesn't matter if 89% of Americans want expanded background checks for gun purchases. It matters how many of them make their voting decisions (and especially votes in primaries) based on that issue.
It's also worth pointing out that the NRA and its members and supporters by and large also don't oppose expanded background checks, per se. The rejection is mostly due to concern that it's the "camel's nose", reinforced by the strong belief that expanded background checks won't actually make any difference, which will guarantee that after expanded background checks fail to work, more restrictions will be demanded. Thus, the conclusion is that even though universal background checks might be only a minor i
Re:Strange (Score:4, Interesting)
The NRA has very little money these days, and gives a shockingly small amount to Republicans considering how much power they (supposedly) wield:
https://www.opensecrets.org/or... [opensecrets.org]
Their peak donation period was in 2000 when they gave over $2.8 million to Republicans.
In contrast:
https://www.opensecrets.org/ov... [opensecrets.org]
And that's just the 2018 cycle alone. The NRA is nothing compared to those donors!
Re: (Score:3)
Bingo. The NRA's power isn't donations, it is its membership and fellow travelers (many of who think the NRA is too soft on 2nd Amendment rights) to whom this issue is important.
Beto announcing in the debates "Hell, yes we're coming to take your guns!", the standing ovation from the audience, and the lack of any push-back from any other Democrat in the debate, was the biggest boost the NRA could get in boosting turnout of their supporters. The NRA or any politician running with a pro-2nd plank in their pl
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have a skewed view of the Canadian system. We have quite a bit of lobbying going on - we even have an office dedicated to it: https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/eic/... [lobbycanada.gc.ca]
aggreed (Score:2)
The US has terminal cancer and can't even remove the tumors; 1/3 are so dim they want to remove their leg and keep the tumor. Probably 3/4 are in denial about the cancer and any tumors are to be removed to prevent cancer but we don't need to do anything further it was probably benign; we dodged the bullet, feel smug and stop worrying.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like most of these issues arise from the fact that representatives in the US can vote with their conscience: individual house representatives can be bought and sold. The real issue in the US is the fact that you can lobby individual lawmakers.
To contrast: in Canada individual lawmakers have to forward with their party or the risk being expelled. It therefore makes very little sense to lobby individual lawmakers and it is a consequently much more expensive for a company to bribe a an entire party. The political system, like most issues with the US, is to blame here. Modernization is required ASAP, but by its very nature of the system is resistant to change. I have very little hope for the country.
The problem is simple to understand and impossible to fix, as you've alluded.
Politicians are evolutionary beings and their sole motivation is to survive the next election and they need money to do that. Corporations hire former politicians and the bureaucracy is filled with former and current corporate leaders. I'm looking at you, Ajit Pai.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It seems like most of these issues arise from the fact that representatives in the US can vote with their conscience: individual house representatives can be bought and sold. The real issue in the US is the fact that you can lobby individual lawmakers.
To contrast: in Canada individual lawmakers have to forward with their party or the risk being expelled. It therefore makes very little sense to lobby individual lawmakers and it is a consequently much more expensive for a company to bribe a an entire party. The political system, like most issues with the US, is to blame here. Modernization is required ASAP, but by its very nature of the system is resistant to change. I have very little hope for the country.
The strong party system is no better. In fact, it is arguably much worse. If I'm Intuit, all I have to do is bribe/lobby the one or few party leaders to do my bidding. What the inconsequential essentially proxy legislators think is irrelevant. I just need to outbid my competitors for purchasing the party leader, and my competitors have no recourse in trying to appeal to individual legislators. I could save a lot of money and effort on bribes by focusing on the bridle instead of trying to push the entir
Not suprising (Score:5, Insightful)
This is classic rent seeking behavior. It is the quintessential problem with American Capitalism. Companies lobbying for government policies that help them make money.
Or in this case, Government policies that keep the company in business. The hidden free filing landing page is just dirty pool
I have used Intuit for years, but they never ever offer the free option as the best version for you, even if you qualify.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is the quintessential problem with American Capitalism.
No its the quintessential problem with regulation! Its the complexity in the rules that enables them to be gamed. Its the gaming that enables the rent seeking. We have an insanely complex tax code, which is guess what not a feature of capitalism. We have large complex government agency to perform tax collection also not a feature of capitalism.
Both of these things are functions of big government intervention. All the problems we have with lobbyists etc only exist because we have allowed our government
Regulatory Capture (Score:4, Informative)
The technical term is regulatory capture. A business uses government regulation to benefit itself, mainly by restricting competition. It doesn't even have to be directly benefiting them. If it's simply more complex or costly to comply with a given regulation, it tends to favor the established players as it's more expensive to start a business in that sector. Simple, easy to follow regulation and inexpensive compliance are an anathema to this system.
It's a two way street - there's a great episode of This American Life that starts out with an Illinois congresswoman leaving a voice mail for a roadwork contractor asking why the company has never called her - as they are in her district and she sits on the transportation committee. You know, they should catch up on things.
Re: (Score:3)
Regulatory Capture: Regulatory capture is a form of government failure which occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.[1] When regulatory capture occurs, the interests of firms, organizations, or political groups are prioritized over the interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. Government age
Pay attention to Modern "Republicans" (Score:2)
Modern "Republicans" consistently have cut their own congressional budgets so that they MUST depend more on 3rd parties to do legislate. Since the 90s I've seen it every time they get majority. The result of this is they don't have the man power to investigate, process and draft the volume of legal documents needed. It indirectly forces BOTH sides to depend on lobbyists to contribute labor. You've got to pay attention to system changes that is when the security holes are inserted for later use.
Both sides
Re: (Score:2)
Open Source (Score:3)
Re:Open Source (Score:5, Insightful)
An open source project sounds reasonable, but
The annual changes to the tax code are major. It would be an annual effort to have tax experts get trained on how the tax code has changed, then they have to work with the coders to implement the changes so that the software continues to produce accurate returns.
An Open Source Project would have to limit it self to certain types of tax forms. Maybe, 1040EZ or 1040 Short Form, for the effort to be reasonable.
A government owned software project would be better in the long run. The Government would certify the software as accurate, and if it wasn't, users wouldn't be held liable for compliance. Intuit provides this now, if the software produces a bad return, Intuit is liable for any mistakes, caused by their code. How would an Open Source Project provide similar liability protection?
Re: (Score:3)
Intuit provides this now, if the software produces a bad return, Intuit is liable for any mistakes, caused by their code.
You'd have to check their current guarantee, but the last time I read it they guaranteed that there would be no errors in the arithmetic. There was no guarantee with regards to the exemptions claimed being appropriate.
Re: (Score:3)
Replying to my own, I looked up the current guarantee [intuit.com]. Short version:
* They guarantee the calculations will be correct.
* Maximum refund is only guaranteed if you find a lower guarantee via another product or service, and then they'll only refund the purchase price.
* Accuracy leading to penalty or interest is only guaranteed for errors "a TurboTax CPA, EA, or Tax Attorney made while providing topic-specific tax advice, a section review, or acting as a signed preparer".
* Audit support is a pointer to generi
Re: (Score:2)
Realistically, the tax code changes affect a small fraction of the populace (business owners, corporations, that sort), and those people aren't going to be doing free filing anyway.
The IRS's existing freefile system works fine for 98%+ of the gener
Re: (Score:2)
This is how bad information gets passed around.
Bad information, such as your totally obscure comment? Yes, that's definitely how it gets around when you write like this.
Re: Sure, because "free" solves everything! *headd (Score:2)
Was there some point or contribution you were going to make? Or just rant like some Intuit paid astroturfer?
Tax filing is an ideal candidate problem for the FOSS community, if only the IRS provided the needed APIs.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you heard it: They can't cause the yagreed to not to it. Anyone has an idea how long this agreement is supposed to be binding?
Besides that: This is absolutely no matter for a FOSS project. It's bound to one country, changes every year with the tax code and it gives absolutely nothing back to a potential developer. You can't design or develop anything, instead you are just translating the tax code into software code. And the state of most nations tax regulations, you can't even take any satisfaction fr
Re: (Score:3)
I work for Intuit and formerly used to work at HR Block.
Yeah, aren't you the same guy who always claims to work everywhere and always says he's "getting a kick" out of the replies?
BUSTED. No one should or will listen to your bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
So there is some legitimate reason that the US government doesn't offer free filing (other than Intuit can't profit from it)?
Is there some reason why an open source solution isn't an option (since that is the post you replied to)? If an open source option isn't feasible in the US what makes it so much different than Canada? Here you can use StudioTax (ok not open source but free to use) and file for free via Netfile.
Since you are someone that has worked inside the industry (supposedly) what are the reasons
Truly a master of time trolling management. (Score:5, Funny)
Swamp (Score:4, Insightful)
If any politician wanted to drain the swamp, there are plenty of places to start:
1) No regulator can work for a company that was previously, and in any way, under his jurisdiction, for at least five years after leaving the regulatory position.
2) Make it a criminal offense for any company to submit bills to any Congress-critter.
3) Make it a criminal offense for Congress to consider any bills submitted in violation of point 2 above.
Those are just the three that jump out at me at this particular moment. There is LOTS of corruption in Congress (both R and D) that needs to be drained.
Re: (Score:2)
The key to draining the swamp is full and public disclosure. For example, if bil
Re: Swamp (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
On the face of it, this is a great idea. However upon further reflection I'm not so sure. Sure five years could be a reasonable compromise between the two equally bad positions of allowing self-regulation (Boeing!) and requiring complete separation of interest. I mean who better to know how an industry should be effectively regulated than someone wh
Re: (Score:3)
I guess the best regulators would be those with extensive industry experience but who are scrupulously honest. Probably hard to find these days.
I agree, but it's even worse than that.
Government positions, save for federal Senators and a few other positions that make six figure salaries, don't generally pay very well. For many people with some industry experience, it would be a pay cut to go into politics, and limit the number of candidates to "people with enough money in the bank to cover their time in office", i.e. the wealthy, i.e. what we already have. The problem is that if we fix that, it will incentivize getting elected as a pay raise, which
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It sounds nice in theory but you need to consider the people with the expertise to write the regulations are in industry not Congress. Your average congress critter does not jack or shit about efficiencies of internal combustion engines and the trade offs. They can't write fuel economy standards without help - if they do its asinine crap like the "Green New Deal" that could never be implemented.
The real solution is shrink the federal government drastically. Shrink it enough and reduce its jurisdiction to
Re: (Score:2)
That's why most developed countries have an independent civil service to do this kind of stuff for you. The USA is rather unique in that all the top civil servants at least are political appointees.
Hey in my country (the UK) while the minister for justice technically appoints judges he has no influence in the decision that being down to existing judges. Only been like that for about 800 years...
Re: (Score:2)
It unfortunately doesn't stop the Brits from complaining about the "unelected bureaucrats in Brussels", which is exactly that - an independent civil service, and a quite efficient one, too.
Re:Swamp (Score:4, Interesting)
The real solution is shrink the federal government drastically. Shrink it enough and reduce its jurisdiction to regulate at all by interpreting the commerce clause as it was intended that its not so worth while to lobby and an attempt regulator capture in the first place.
Actually, we need a constitutional amendment that requires ALL federal laws to have a 10-year sunset. Existing legislation would have its text fed to a hash function that returns a number between 12 and 120, and assign a sunset date that many months in the future.
That should keep Congress busy enough re-passing laws that actually are important at the Federal level that they don't have time to meddle in anything else, and the states can deal with anything that falls through. Even better if states did the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
2) Make it a criminal offense for any company to submit bills to any Congress-critter.
So congress members can get anything they want for free while they are in office?
Oh, not those kind of bills. 8^)
Re:Swamp (Score:4)
Those are just the three that jump out at me at this particular moment. There is LOTS of corruption in Congress (both R and D) that needs to be drained.
4. Make all public officials financial documents public records while they are in office, and for the next 10 years after leaving office.
5. Make all Congressional pay records a matter of public vote.
Just two I would like to add to your list.
Adam Ruins Everything. (Score:3)
How does the article not list this Adam Ruins Everything episode?
https://www.trutv.com/shows/ad... [trutv.com]
Or would that open them up to plagarism?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because no one has ever heard of Adam Ruins Everything. I know I hadn't. I mean who the hell still watches TV anyway.
I watch Adam Ruins Everything all the time. It's the only show I've ever seen that actually cites its references and sources on screen. It's the kind of TV a slashdotter would actually like.
url? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a bit odd that the point of this article is to point out the corruption and the attempt to hide the free filing web page.. then fail to actually give the link to the free filing url? I mean.. c'mon...
Re:url? (Score:5, Funny)
I think it's a bit odd that the point of this article is to point out the corruption and the attempt to hide the free filing web page.. then fail to actually give the link to the free filing url? I mean.. c'mon...
The editors couldn't find it, either.
Re: (Score:3)
I think these might work:
https://www.irs.gov/filing/fre... [irs.gov]
https://turbotax.intuit.com/pe... [intuit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing stops you from filing your taxes for free (Score:2)
The forms are available for free download.
Simple returns can be filed electronically for free using multiple providers. I've done it for my kids that way for years.
More complex tax situations usually require professional assistance. It would be nice if they simplified the tax code.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you even need to fill out any forms if the information is already provided through other means? Send a summary and have individuals sign it. Why make it complex in the first place?
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you even need to fill out any forms if the information is already provided through other means? Send a summary and have individuals sign it. Why make it complex in the first place?
The government will not be aware of every detail of your taxes. I have many investments and potential deductions.
But really for simple cases like "1 job and standard deduction" the taxes are very easy to do, either on paper or on-line, even using turbotax. Just don't be dumb enough to pay for it when you don't have to.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly - so why not have the government send you a 1040-EZ (or 1040 long, as appropriate) already filled out, so that all 90% of filers have to do is sign it and return?
No, the government doesn't have all information about everyone - but if like the overwhelming majority of people your only income is from salary or wages (which your employer has already reported), interest (which your bank has already reported), government benefits (which the government already knows about), etc. then it would work great,
Re: (Score:2)
The forms are available for free download.
I used to do that. It was educational and entertaining, but still a waste of time. (time is money)
Also, not allowed to submit paper forms anymore in many states (yeah, I know this is about the Federal filing, but they are related.) Just wait until that reaches the Federal level.
Simple returns can be filed electronically for free using multiple providers. I've done it for my kids that way for years.
Simple is very limited. If you have anything like a savings account, aunt Ida's inheritance, homeowner, etc., you may be forced out of the simple case. Whether the law specifically limits the simple case or not; you have to wo
Re: (Score:2)
The forms are available for free download.
I used to do that. It was educational and entertaining, but still a waste of time. (time is money)
Also, not allowed to submit paper forms anymore in many states (yeah, I know this is about the Federal filing, but they are related.) Just wait until that reaches the Federal level.
Simple returns can be filed electronically for free using multiple providers. I've done it for my kids that way for years.
Simple is very limited. If you have anything like a savings account, aunt Ida's inheritance, homeowner, etc., you may be forced out of the simple case. Whether the law specifically limits the simple case or not; you have to work through a provider that is not going to make the free option easy to find. Alternately, the fly-by-night free filing services may not be trustworthy with your privacy.
Just out of curiosity, why didn't the simple return apply to you as well?
More complex tax situations usually require professional assistance. It would be nice if they simplified the tax code.
Yes, and this for-profit industry makes sure as many people as possible fall into that category. They want to give the illusion that only applies to some, or that they will find some magical loophole for you. But none of this should be necessary for individuals.
Cleaning your house is time consuming too. You can pay someone to do it.
Tax prep is just another kind of service you can pay someone to do.
In my case I have complex investments and many deductions. The simple form is inadequate. I pay a lot to get mine done.
But my kids I just do on Turbotax free edition. No problem at all.
Re: (Score:3)
The tax software handles complex situations and does it well, that's why people use it. And it's very cheap, the cost is nominal. It even includes free filing for that matter, why stand in line at the post office for certified return receipt mail, that alone is reason enough to file electronically. And that brings up point that if you're just tossing in the mail with stamp and hoping for the best you will be in a world of hurt if the post office loses it. Of course, you burger squishing kids that can do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wrong, Federal tax is orders of magnitude more complicated. The software handles very complicated situations, not "a brief logic tree", you are talking out of your ass.
By the way I use our state's free portal too, but fed is totally different territory
Re: Nothing stops you from filing your taxes for f (Score:2)
We've been brainwashed into thinking any of those situations need to be complex. The tax law patchwork simply codifies that.
Re: (Score:2)
well, yes, our tax code is a spaghetti noodle pile and not many people think it is good or necessary. but until that is fixed there is need for the tax software
Re: (Score:2)
True that, and also Internet access is not required to file or even get the forms for mail-in filing.
Almost every post office and library has most of the IRS forms. We can walk or ride our wheelchairs to pick up the forms.
Many businesses such as office supply and copy centers have the forms and provide copy services.
The forms can be ordered by mail for those that live in remote or foreign locations.
You can even call the IRS on the phone to place an order for the forms.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect you are British or Canadian based on your spelling of offense? Maybe they are more forgiving than the IRS. There are penalties beyond the interest for making mistakes honestly or otherwise..
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect you are British or Canadian based on your spelling of offense? Maybe they are more forgiving than the IRS.
They aren't as forgiving as you would think. I once got a call from the Canadian IRS saying they had a warrant out for my arrest due to not paying some taxes and I had never even been to Canada!
Re: (Score:2)
The *other* other thing to remember, is that an intentional "mistake" is tax fraud, and if you get caught then it's on you to prove that it was a mistake rather than tax fraud.
Finally, the other, other, other thing to remember is that if you do use a 3rd-party tax filer - whether it's TurboTax or a real accountant - and they screw up (which does happen), then it's still legally *your* fault.
Re: Nothing stops you from filing your taxes for f (Score:2)
They make assurances about 'audit protection', but I'm pretty sure that is a hollow promise.
Re: (Score:2)
You may as well try to do it yourself for free, if they think you have filed incorrectly they will inform you of exactly what they think is wrong.
Here's an idea: Have them do that calculation before I send in my version. Then let me do the review, and if I don't have anything unusual I just sign it.
Yes, it's literally that easy. Don't even have to create any new systems, just change the order you run them in. Which is exactly what people have been trying to do for years and Intuit keep lobbying against.
It's already free (Score:2)
It's free now, the filing costs nothing.I have done it for free for years, you get the forms for free, fill them out, send them in. You don't need TurboTax or H&R Block, if you are willing to spend the time on it.
The real difficulty comes in the complexity of the tax code, it takes an incredible amount of time to research what you have to do, and the instructions (also free) assume extensive knowledge.
Re: (Score:3)
>It's free
>if you are willing to spend the time on it.
These two statements contradict each other.
Money is just a convenient intermediate medium of exchange - what you're really paying for something is the time and/or effort you spent getting the money in the first place. The corollary is that if you have to spend time and/or effort to get something, then it's not free - regardless of whether you traded that time for money, or paid it directly.
Re: It's already free (Score:2)
Exactly. Not everyone values time as much as they should.
Re: It's already free (Score:2)
Been there, done that. Add-in normal life events and you eventually fall off the DIY wagon.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Peace in Syria (Score:2, Funny)
Hear Hear
Notice how the establishment under Clinton and Obama funded Al Qaeda to try and bring Assad a Russian Ally down. When that did not work imposed a no fly zone in Eastern Syria so as to let ISIS emerge and then used ISIS as an excuse to take over Eastern Syria.
Even when ISIS was defeated and there was a window of opportunity for the Syrian Govt and the Kurds to come to a political agreement and then jointy fight Al Qaeda under Russian tutelage , the establishment fought back. Trump wanted to get out
Re:Peace in Syria (Score:4, Informative)
So abandoning our absolutely key ally in our fight against ISIS is a good thing because you give us your assurances that the Syrian war will be over in a month? All that's happening now is that Turks are going to be far more relevant in the peace process and they're no fans of Assad either. The Kurds still want their Kurdmenistan as well.
Meanwhile, plenty of our allies are dying as we speak and good luck to us the next time we want the locals to pitch in their fair share in a conflict. After Afghanistan (which is slowly crumbling to the Taliban) and now Syria we've sent the clear message that "we'll protect you only as long as you're relevant to us, then we're cutting you loose".
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe thats not such a bad thing.
Fomenting conflicts in stable countries for a pipedream of a democratic society seems to cause more human suffering than leaving the strongmen alone.
Every country needs to find its own way to Democracy. When you try to impose democracy from 30000 feet, it never works out.
And the US has had no problem dealing with Dictatorships like Sout Korea, Taiwan , Singapore , Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and pretty much all of Africa and Latin America in the past.
Many of those have found thei
Re: (Score:2)
That was already tried [mapbox.com]
2019 Standard Deduction = No TurboTax (Score:5, Informative)
The Trump adminstration more than DOUBLED the standard deduction. For married joint filers, unless they can come up with more than $24,400 worth of itemized deductions, there's absolutely no need for complicated tax software. It's just 1 page, front and back. Done.
Re:2019 Standard Deduction = No TurboTax (Score:5, Insightful)
And that one page should be automatically generated by the IRS, then a bill (or refund) and invoice sent to the taxpayer. For most people, it could be largely automated.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you missed the memo that everything Trump is, does, and stands for is evil.
The idea that something the Trump administration has done is positive is anathema for most right-thinking people to admit.
Watch this post modded down to infinity.
I would think that "the market" will fix this soon (Score:2)
I noticed that CreditKarma has recently released tax preparation software that's free for both Federal and State filings. It also doesn't have the annual income limits that the "free" solution that TurboTax offers as well. It's not as polished as TurboTax or TaxCut, but it works well enough. I used it to file my taxes last year without issue.
I'm sure that CreditKarma is data mining the crap out of the information I'm providing them to send me credit card offers, but I'm willing to put up with that to save a
Very ignorant point of view (Score:2)
People with somewhat complicated tax situations use the filing software. And the filing itself is free and included (up to 5 times I believe)
I see those here with typical droid job and no other income that can use simple 1040A form and a probably a toddler's crayon spouting off about how "its the end result of post capitalism" and other nonsense.
No, many people value the ability of software that can do multiple scenarios, gets regular updates of ever changing tax code, has advisor system. The software do
Power differential (Score:2)
This is just Capitalism when the limit approaches infinity. As long as we have ideologues who
Filing taxes is not the same as doing taxes (Score:2)
TurboTax does more than file your taxes; it does them. I've filed with TurboTax for years, including Schedule C. Filing is the easy part. Getting everything else in order is the harder part. That's what TurboTax is for. It takes all that information and "does your taxes" with it. I no longer have to visit a "tax consultant" who will do the same thing and charge me four times more than TurboTax does. TurboTax has taken that annual drudgery and turned it into a piece of cake. I pay for that. Filing is include
I file my taxes for free every year (Score:3, Insightful)
It has never cost anything to file your taxes. You simply fill out and mail in the forms.
Free Filing Is Available (Score:2)
Free tax filing has been available for several years now through AARP, and you do not have to be an AARP member to use this service. You have to appear in person at an AARP tax-preparation site with all of your information. An AARP volunteer enters your data into a central server, and another volunteer double-checks the results. Your tax return is then electronically submitted to the IRS, and a paper copy is given to you.
If you owe taxes, you have the option of having your payment taken electronically fr
Choice in e-filing solutions (Score:2)
there are many misunderstandings here. It does take money to actually develop the software to provide the UI used to allow for efiling and tax management. Why should people who don't use e-filing have to pay for the software for it? The way things are done now is people get to put their money on the software that they can choose and choose which software development to fund. There are other programs as well for filing, there could even be open source ones, besides Turbotax. The way things are now and what
My favorite slide ever (Score:2)
The article shows this slide [propublica.org] from an internal Intuit presentation. It has two examples of the most willful blindness I've ever seen.
The website lists Free, Free, Free and the customers are assuming their return will be free.
That's not "assuming". That's, what, basic reading skills?
Customers need help on their taxes and seem to think if they click on Live Tax Advice they will get someone live to assist them.
Holy shit, what's getting into these people? It's almost like they think words mean things!
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like this?: https://apps.irs.gov/app/freeF... [irs.gov]