7 ms·

A direct e-file, obviously, is great, but I really just want to get a document near the beginning of the year where the IRS tells me what they believe my taxes

• ollien 4y ago
  This is called return-free filing and has had bipartisan support for a long time https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-fight-to-stop-americans-from-filing-their-taxes-for-free https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-f...
  • clumsysmurf 4y ago
    > and has had bipartisan support for a long time Not really ... Americans for Tax Reform (Grover Norquist) .. a very influential conservative group, opposes this because they want people to associate taxes with pain. If its easier to do, its less pain. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-maker-of-turbotax-fought-free-simple-tax-filing https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-maker-of-turbotax...
    • ollien 4y ago
      Sorry, I don't mean to imply it's universally supported, but there is support on both sides of the aisle. But the article you linked does indeed say it has had bipartisan support :) > When Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Dan Coats, R-Ind., introduced a bipartisan tax reform bill in 2011 that included a return-free plan called "Easyfile," Norquist blasted it. If it were universally supported, this wouldn't have happened https://www.propublica.org/article/congress-is-about-to-ban-the-government-from-offering-free-online-tax-filing-thank-turbotax https://www.propublica.org/article/congress-is-about-to-ban-...
• pfranz 4y ago
  Any time this comes up, its good to bring up California's 2005 pilot program; ReadyReturn. "When the FTB launched the ReadyReturn website, Intuit sued and lobbied California legislators to kill the program." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CalFile#ReadyReturn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CalFile#ReadyReturn
  • GalenErso 4y ago
    On what grounds did they sue? "You're hurting my profits"?
    • baq 4y ago
      Of course, what else? It was just worded differently
    • dataflow 4y ago
      I believe I once read the argument is that this would make people pay more in taxes, since presumably the government would seek to assess the highest liability if there's any ambiguity, and people would be less encouraged to find deduction/credit/etc. opportunities.
    • mgkimsal 4y ago
      Can't speak for California law, but in NC, when a local municipality set up its own fiber network, they were sued by ... Time Warner Cable (IIRC) on the grounds that cities can't use public funds to 'compete' with private companies. To add insult to injury, they were mostly looking to manage their own fiber network to serve their citizens because TWC had said "no, we're not going to support your region, because it's not profitable". So... it's not profitable for a private company, and public orgs can't compete with private companies..... so... take a hike?
      • gl-prod 4y ago
        I guess this is a legislative problem that will never be solved for obvious reasons.
    • 4y ago
• LinuxBender 4y ago
  I absolutely agree with this. I have CPA's and lawyers do my taxes and I still get the IRS arguing about what I owe and by the time they tell me I am already receiving a penalty. Battling it out with the IRS takes ages and the IRS courts that's really a thing are only open part of the year which can drag things out even longer leading to more penalties even if they agree the original amount was incorrect.
  • GalenErso 4y ago
    > I have CPA's and lawyers How complex are your taxes that you need more than one CPA and lawyers to do them?
    • Moto7451 4y ago
      There are a couple edge cases where CPAs are poorly equipped. ISOs are one of them. Out of state ISOs even more so. I moved out of CA and had to pay taxes on my ISOs. Financially it was a good move as the market soured after I sold them. Even after paying taxes to two states, I came out ahead. However, my life was misery just trying to do the right thing. It took three CPAs. One quit after he was sufficiently intimidated after calling the FTB for instructions, one just gave up, and the third told me correct enough instructions that I paid and filed. I apparently still did something wrong per California and had to write them another check. I have no idea if I overpaid or not. It’s simply not worth the fight but if I did think it was, in come the lawyers. I just want to get to a point where I am not living with monthly taxation discussions so I’m ok with being done with it, whatever overpayment I may have made.
      • thepasswordis 4y ago
        What's an ISO?
        • ac29 4y ago
          From context, I assume Incentive Stock Options
• kortilla 4y ago
  After Trump’s tax law increasing the standard deduction, about 14% itemize. https://taxfoundation.org/standard-deduction-itemized-deductions-current-law-2019/ https://taxfoundation.org/standard-deduction-itemized-deduct... So what you’re proposing would work for most individuals. I don’t agree with the “accounting firm handling all this” for the remaining thought (unless you count TurboTax as an accounting firm).
  • geraldwhen 4y ago
    The TCJA saves me a day every year doing taxes. Love it.
• deafpolygon 4y ago
  Literally every other first-word country has implemented this by now. Why the US is such a holdout is beyond me (I know why, lobbying.. but still).
  • nhooyr 4y ago
    Nope, Canada is also a holdout :(
• throwawayiionqz 4y ago
  If you file an extension, after Aprilc 15 you will be able to see on the IES tr
• koolba 4y ago
  I'll accept the baby step of a fixed historical period of time that they can audit your records. It's incredible nebulous. For example here's the info on self-employed / business audits: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/irs-audits https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe... > How far back can the IRS go to audit my return? > Generally, the IRS can include returns filed within the last three years in an audit. If we identify a substantial error, we may add additional years. We usually don't go back more than the last six years. > The IRS tries to audit tax returns as soon as possible after they are filed. Accordingly most audits will be of returns filed within the last two years. > If an audit is not resolved, we may request extending the statute of limitations for assessment tax. The statute of limitations limits the time allowed to assess additional tax. It is generally three years after a return is due or was filed, whichever is later. There is also a statute of limitations for making refunds. Extending the statute gives you more time to provide further documentation to support your position; request an appeal if you do not agree with the audit results; or to claim a tax refund or credit. It also gives the IRS time to complete the audit and provides time to process the audit results. > You don't have to agree to extend the statute of limitations date. However if you don't agree, the auditor will be forced to make a determination based upon the information provided. So it's three years, but they sometimes go back six years. But they can also go back an arbitrary amount of years, so the three / six is completely meaningless.
  • ncallaway 4y ago
    They can go extend the statute of limitations *if you agree*. So, the statute of limitations seems… pretty ironclad. I don’t understand the issue you’re raising. If you don’t want them to look further back, don’t consent to extending the statute of limitations?
    • koolba 4y ago
      > They can go extend the statute of limitations if you agree. The way that line is worded, the IRS can compel you to agree by rejecting your current return for lack of documentation. For example, if you have a capital loss carry over from twenty years ago that you've been rolling over every year (applying the $3,000 deduction limit to ordinary income), they could compel you to allow being audited for the past twenty years or reject allowing you to apply it to the current year. Since you never know how far back they can go, you effectively have to keep all your documentation forever or risk having them reject your current returns until you comply.
• nobaddays 4y ago
  This is how they do it in most of europe iirc
  • InCityDreams 4y ago
    We're once more, really laughing at this, over here, again, annual-like.
• turdprincess 4y ago
  The government can’t magically know what your expenses and deductions are. Got married, had a baby, used a home office, paid a plumber to fix your rental property? Deducting mortgage interest? If none of these things apply to you and your taxes are really just a single w2 income it’s pretty simple to just fill out a paper 1040 form (or even 1040ez). You just need your w2 and an hour of time.
  • dataflow 4y ago
    > If none of these things apply to you and your taxes are really just a single w2 income it’s pretty simple to just fill out a paper 1040 form (or even 1040ez). You just need your w2 and an hour of time. I think their point was that this case should be "log in, check the totals match, click OK", not an hour of your time. Or better yet, not require you to do anything if you believe your withholdings were sufficient.
  • manuelabeledo 4y ago
    The return free model works in several other countries. Even if it wasn’t accurate, it saves hours in filing taxes.
  • warning26 4y ago
    You do know that in most countries optional returns are the norm, right? Sure, if you have a bunch of weird expenses/deductions you can file, but for most people, the numbers the government has are already correct.
    • zdragnar 4y ago
      If I'm remembering correctly, primary home mortgage interest is the single biggest deduction (also known as a "loophole") in our (the US) tax code. We would need a fair few laws for the government to be able to get the information to cover most people's taxes, though I think this is less true after the standard deduction was doubled during the Trump years. (Banks have reporting duties, but are not run by the government so anything not directly related to fraud prevention isn't covered under the law)
• throwawayiionqz 4y ago
  > the IRS tells me what they believe my taxes should be File for an extension. Then after April 15, download your wage & income transcripts from the IRS. Use that to reconcile with your own records and file before October
  • mock-possum 4y ago
    Wait what? Can you explain this approach a little further?
  • rhaway84773 4y ago
    I just wanted to add that an extension is not an extension to the time you have to pay your taxes. So if you file for an extension, don’t pay anything by April 15, and then it turns out you owe $1000 in taxes in October, you will now have to pay $1000 + penalty + interest on the $1000. Filing for an extension only extends the time to file your taxes. Not the time to pay your taxes (I think the one exception to this was when COVID hit, where even the date to pay taxes was extended, but I’m not a 100% sure).
• Semaphor 4y ago
  We have that in Germany. It's called a "pre-filled tax declaration" and even if things differ in the end, you can still use it as base for your actual declaration. Though I still pay the 15€ a year for a tool for convenience
• pickovven 4y ago
  Came here to say this. It's so obvious and the downstream political implications are hugely positive.
• bushbaba 4y ago
  That would lead to lots of under collection of taxes. The benefit of the current approach is that the IRS ends up collecting more money.
• rodgerd 4y ago
  > but I really just want to get a document near the beginning of the year where the IRS tells me what they believe my taxes owed/returned should be. This is what we have in New Zealand, and it's wonderful; most people simply don't need to do anything other than check their assessment and get on with their lives. Even if you've got e.g. investments you can usually do your filing with no more effort than taking the PAYE (income tax) assessment and bolting on your additional sources of income. Much like the US banking system, it bemuses me how backward the US is in this regard.