Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

If he forgot to initial a box, John Stewart would have a laugh at his expense and it would underscore the notion that filing is complicated (and should be simplified). But that's about it.

The salient point here is that there is no right answer to even moderately complex tax filings. Ralph Nader did this experiment a while back. The same relatively simple tax filing was sent to something like two dozen IRS offices. Each one checked the filing and weighed in on the correctness of the form. Every office said that the filing was wrong but they all came up with different and widely varying figures for what the "correct" figure should be. I suspect a large part of the reason this guy uses a preparer (software in this case) is so that even if "errors" are discovered, he can plausibly claim that he did the best he could and can expect leniency. (Timothy Geithner, white courtesy phone please.) Think you can just ask the IRS for instruction and/or definitive rulings? They get it wrong, a lot. (http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2005reports/20054014...)

Bignum hours and dollars are spent by individuals and corporations attempting to do taxes correctly. The time suck and opportunity costs are massive.



sort by: page size:

Filing taxes is notoriously obtuse.

The fact that complexity exists doesn't excuse the additional unnecessary complexity added at every step of the tax filing. Nor the fact that it can't be done online directly with the IRS, without potentially malicious third-parties involved.

Yes, but if the US tax code weren't so darn complicated wouldn't that reduce the chances of the IRS totally screwing up?

I just finished my taxes and filing taxes in the US is such a stshow. But where do we start? We want to simplify filing, but that might depend on simplifying the tax code, which might be orders of magnitude more difficult. Sigh!


"The Internal Revenue Service has quietly built its own prototype system to allow Americans to file tax returns digitally and free of charge"

I think opening the article this way is misleading, although they explain it better later on. This isn't about filing for free, it's about guided tax preparation. Those automated systems that ask a series of simple questions and magically submit your tax return.

That's why tax complexity is the underlying issue. To do your taxes you "just" have to follow along a 100+ page instruction booklet (plus instruction booklets for any additional forms). Even with the Free Fillable Forms (free government electronic filing for everyone with digital forms and some automated calculations) it's a pain in the butt. By rephrasing the questions, automating the calculations, and checking for errors, fairly complex taxes can be done in under an hour.

So we're playing this stupid game where the government spends the time and money to write complex taxes and all the forms and instructions to go with them, just for us to pay businesses to simplify it all so we can tell the government what our taxes really are. I hope this change takes a big chunk out of the $14 billion tax prep industry (that's more than the IRS's expenditures), because maybe when they're out of the game Congress will be a little more motivated.


The tax code is too complex. I've consulted professional tax accountants three times over the last decade. Professionals don't understand it either.

The first one was an oaf in Los Angeles that charged me $500 to redo a back-of-the-envelope calculation I had already done.

The second one was an older lady in Silicon Valley. You would think she would have known how ISOs work, but she messed up the calculations anyway. There were no penalties, but she felt bad enough that she filed my taxes for free. She got cancer and retired 6 months later.

The third was a friend that prepares taxes for billionaires. His retainer is something like $15K per year. His software's calculations disagreed with my homemade spreadsheet by $40K. In April my spreadsheet ended up within a few thousand of TurboTax. He's still kicking himself over that...


The problem is not who prepares your taxes. The problem is how complicated taxes are.

90% of people in the US could fill out their taxes by hand in less than 5 minutes. It's <12 lines on a one page form (1040-EZ) and half of those won't even apply to everyone.

Yes, the IRS could do even this for you, but there's a myth that US taxes are always monstrously complicated that everyone likes to perpetuate:

1) The tax companies like it because it keeps people scared of doing it themselves

2) Tax reform advocates like it because it's they can cluck and shake their head at the corrupt government and tax companies

3) It _can_ get complicated if you have a complicated tax situation


> By “simplifying” tax filing without simplifying the underlying calculations, there is far less public visibility of just how broken the tax system is.

That's a decently idealistic viewpoint, but "complicated" doesn't necessarily mean "broken". For example, pretty much all Unix-style operating systems have not only a ton of now-unnecessary code to handle text I/O from 1960's teletype machines, but they even come with a "terminal emulator" that literally emulates the behavior of a 1960's teletype machine. That's how the command line works. You would never design it that way from the start, it's complicated, it's crufty, and it's vaguely horrifying, and yet it works and solves virtually all of the real problems that real people would have with that system. Just like letting the IRS fill out the first draft of your tax return.


It's also really bad style for TAX Software. He should be sanity checking all his numeric data, wow.

I have to disagree on the simple aspect. It feels like they've been designed by someone who feels American tax payers are too stupid to understand the tax system and are only capable of following simple instructions like an eight-year old.

Because of my immigration status I paid an accountant to prepare my forms and was a little surprised to find out I owed the IRS. I tried to work backwards to figure out why but this was all but impossible. Few of the values are labelled and all are interdependent on each other. To figure out what a single value I had to work backwards through multiple branches until I reached the root input.

I'm convinced the forms were designed by writing someone in the IRS taking the code for their tax calculators, removing the identifiers and converting it into English text. I have no idea what each variable represents so am unable to be sure the totals are correct. I got the impression that an error early in the process could easily carry through without me noticing. The whole process is opaque and doesn't make me feel like I can trust the IRS or the process to produce an accurate result.

By contrast the Australian eTax application asks me a series of yes/no questions, used that to calculate my deductions and income and showed breakdowns for each. For anything non-standard they ask you to use online calculators and provide or retain your documentation. The UK system was even easier and seemed to be calculated based on data supplied directly by employers. My wife was able to get a tax return without submitting any paperwork (there may have been a single form, I can't really remember).


Note it says "free" and "government prepared". Setting aside that those are mutually exclusive concepts, that says nothing about simplifying taxes - it's just having the government do the complicated stuff instead of you (or your accountant).

> Think about all the information (marital status, dependents, residence, childcare spending, healthcare spending, education spending, charitable contributions, …) you need to correctly calculate your taxes owed. Now imagine that the IRS is tasked with maintaining all of this information in a single database so they can send you your “statement”.

There's nothing hard about updating a few values with these then you're done in five minutes. State governments already do simple walkthrough forms and federal is really no different. If you have a complex tax situation then that's your problem to deal with. Don't burden 99.9% of the population with something that should be free, should be simple, and should be fast.


Interesting objection. To me simplify taxes == simplify filing taxes. "I'm doing my taxes" does not mean I'm doing my tax code, but I am preparing and filing my taxes.

As a lawyer and tax accountant, do you see a flaw in the professor's approach? Any domain expert insight here?


There's considerable complexity in working out, for example, Australian personal income tax given a person's tax return (and assuming no dishonesty or error in it). I've seen mere approximations reach thousands of lines of C.

This is not about simplifying the tax code. This is about filing returns.

Unfortunately your take is wrong, rather than controversial.

I do my taxes every year, sometimes long-form, sometimes with software like TurboTax. The complexity of my taxes is entirely the fault of the way in which I am required to provide information to the IRS, most of which they already know, even though I take the standard deduction and don't do any "tricks". A simply example is if you have any sort of stocks/bonds or other tradeable asset holdings. Reporting this is a massive pain in the ass, because despite the fact that Schwab/Etrade/et-al already report this to the IRS, they make you list the cost basis, date of purchase, and sale price of every transaction that occurred within the tax year as part of calculating whether or not you're eligible for long-term capital gains or are taxed at your marginal income tax rate (short term capital gains). Very closely related is transactions dealing with RSUs, which every tech worker (most of HN) has to deal with. This is despite the fact I work a relatively normal white collar job on a W-2 and don't even file a base 1099 on a yearly basis.

Taxes are complicated in the US because our tax code is bonkers and we're forced to precisely input a whole lot of spreadsheet bullshit that the IRS already knows so they can auto-check our work against their database rather than just telling me I owe them an extra $2k because despite having maximum withholding, the government wants to fuck me a little deeper in the ass. Exactly none of this is optional, I am /obligated/ to report all of this complexity, whether I paid enough or not, or I am legally penalized.

Taxes /could/ be simple, but they are not, for anyone who makes more than about $60k/yr, which is nearly half the country.

> You can dumbly supply a small amount of information and be in complete compliance with the law.

This is not only factually untrue, anyone who follows this advice is putting themselves in significant legal jeopardy.


For the typical person who has a W2 and maybe one of two 1099s, tax filing is really straightforward although the IRS could absolutely make it even more straightforward. And, as you say, most people with moderately complicated taxes where they can't just straightforwardly fill in some obvious boxes are arguably better off using a professional.

Ha, getting taxes wrong isn't stupid. It's a sign that taxes are complicated. :)

Right, it's possible for the tax code to be complex but still present a simple user interface. That means that it would, hypothetically, be possible for the e-file process to include a simple user interface (using, as you say... software).

If you chase up the comment chain you replied to, you're really agreeing with me using a tone of disagreement. sockaddr says that filing has to be complex because tax codes are complex. We both disagree with that.

next

Legal | privacy