IRS wants to eliminate tax returns; opposed by grover norquist/tax prep companies

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
California has a test system and has an unheard of 99% positive experience for the users that used it.

This makes so much god damned sense, but i'm not surprised a shithead like Grover Norquist would oppose this. Some theorized that if taxes were less annoying, fewer people would be opposed to them, so obviously anti-tax advocates want preparing taxes to be as painful as possible.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8134597.../irs-considers-ditching-dreaded/#.T44leNXhd6c

How happy would you be if the IRS announced tomorrow that you were no longer responsible for filing a tax return by April 15? Mildly happy? Exceedingly happy? My guess is "overwhelmingly happy." Tax time is an awful time of year when all of us struggle with memories, receipts, forms, numbers, and other extraneous piles of paper.

That's why I was intrigued by the minutes of the May 17 meeting of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, where the topic was return-free filing.

Under a return-free system, individual taxpayers would no longer be responsible for filling out the dreaded 1040 form and sending it to the IRS. Instead, the IRS would generate an itemized liability form using an individual's W2, 1099, and other relevant data, then send it to the taxpayer. The taxpayer would then accept or contest the IRS assessment, with refunds or further payments made accordingly. Ideally, such a system would reduce the burden on taxpayers; the IRS estimates that complying with the tax code cost citizens $156 and 26 hours of their lives in 2002.

I don't think any of us would mind having that time and money back, but the question is: Do we trust the IRS?

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, does not. His presentation at the meeting argued that a return-free system would essentially audit every citizen, help the government increase revenues, and keep taxpayers unaware of their growing tax burden. Uninformed taxpayers might also be wary of challenging government-generated numbers and end up paying too much.

Joseph Bankman of Stanford Law School took a more positive view. He compared filing taxes to paying a credit card bill, with the government standing in for the card issuer. The government already knows all of your transactions — why shouldn't it just send you that information and let you check it for errors?

The system took a test drive under the name ReadyReturn in the Governator-led state of California this past February. Approximately 20 percent of California taxpayers filed through ReadyReturn, and Bankman's data suggested that 99 percent of them enjoyed a positive experience. His presentation included quotes like this one from satisfied users: "Wow! Government doing something to make life easier for a change."

Although this debate is in the very early stages, preparers such as H&R Block and Jackson Hewitt have generally opposed any return-free plan, fearing it would adversely affect their businesses. I can also imagine that tax software companies such as Microsoft or Motley Fool Inside Value pick Intuit, whose TurboTax software generates so much of its revenue, would be wary of a change. It's not clear whether taxpayers would abandon software helpers and tax preparers to go it alone in a return-free system or stick with trusted third-party businesses out of distrust for the IRS. Challenging the government could prove to be even more daunting than generating a tax return from scratch.

Until Uncle Sam decides to ditch the dreaded 1040, the Fool's Tax Center can help you make the best of your yearly date with the IRS. Need more bright ideas? Tap the knowhow of fellow Fools on our Tax Strategies message board.
 

woodie1

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2000
5,947
0
0
In my dealings with the IRS over the last 50 years I have learned that they are not to be trusted. You wanna go this route, be my guest, I will not follow you down this road.

A great many of their employees are clueless dolts IMHO.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
The rich love 65,000 pages of tax code where only 20 apply to you.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
In my dealings with the IRS over the last 50 years I have learned that they are not to be trusted. You wanna go this route, be my guest, I will not follow you down this road.

A great many of their employees are clueless dolts IMHO.

OK, so review what they mail you, and send the corrections back if it's wrong.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
The California system is for a very limited number of people.

1. It allows for no deductions beyond the standard deduction.
2. No non W-2 Income.
3. No tax differed retirement contributions.
4. Unmarried

So it doesn't really work for most people.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
You know this article is from 2005, and in 7 years California has made NO in improvements to its system.
 

Xcobra

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2004
3,675
423
126
Ummmm except that the won't know about my overseas accounts... I love it!!
 

etrigan420

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2007
1,723
1
81
California has a test system and has an unheard of 99% positive experience for the users that used it.

This makes so much god damned sense, but i'm not surprised a shithead like Grover Norquist would oppose this. Some theorized that if taxes were less annoying, fewer people would be opposed to them, so obviously anti-tax advocates want preparing taxes to be as painful as possible.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8134597.../irs-considers-ditching-dreaded/#.T44leNXhd6c

If true...99% approval rating is very tough to argue against...any idea how much more overhead the IRS (we) would have to incur to make this a reality?

Hell,
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
The California system is for a very limited number of people.

1. It allows for no deductions beyond the standard deduction.
2. No non W-2 Income.
3. No tax differed retirement contributions.
4. Unmarried

So it doesn't really work for most people.

It would work for me, and my retirement crap is on the W-2
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
Also this article has a major error, 20% of people in California did not file using this system, 20% of the eligible people filed using this method. A big difference, only like 50,000 people a year use this method. Since most people are not legible.
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
If true...99% approval rating is very tough to argue against...any idea how much more overhead the IRS (we) would have to incur to make this a reality?

They already run everyones' return through the computer to check for errors, so probably not too much more.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Also this article has a major error, 20% of people in California did not file using this system, 20% of the eligible people filed using this method. A big difference, only like 50,000 people a year use this method. Since most people are not legible.

Holy thread fail.

So much for turning this into YAPRHT. (Yet Another Phokus Repulican Hate Thread)
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,452
2
0
i don't like the sounds of it . . they want to desensitize you to how much you're actually paying, new statues here and there and all of a sudden you're paying slowly more each year without realizing it because you just look at the number and write the check. for an individual with not much going on, it's pretty simple to do taxes, small businesses on the other hand, whew
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,479
8,003
136
Under the conservative credo of "Protect the rich and their generous tax loopholes at all cost" this plan will never be implemented nationwide.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
How about all our income goes directly to the government and they dole out what we're entitled to? Even simpler.

What could go wrong?

Oh, oh, even better. Let's just have one company. We can call it GovBiz. We'll all work for GovBiz, all receive the same pay, the same benefits and the government can dole out what we're entitled to after they skim off a meager amount to pay for roads and magic fast trains and stuff.

Now there's an arrangement that will have you springing out of bed in the morning with a smile on your face ready to take on the challenges of the day!
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
In my dealings with the IRS over the last 50 years I have learned that they are not to be trusted. You wanna go this route, be my guest, I will not follow you down this road.

A great many of their employees are clueless dolts IMHO.

You've been audited for the last 50 years??? I feel bad for you bro because I only have been audited twice in 35 years.
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
sorry, this sounds like a horrible idea. tax reform means simplify the tax code, not just simplify what the citizens have to do. that is the biggest problem with this idea. the tax code is still a maze of regulation, this would just keep people from seeing it.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
The wealthy like the complex tax code way it is, they wrote it after all. Plus there is like a million accountants you'd have to find jobs for. Not happening ever.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
99% of the people that work for the IRS are incompetent fools that have little understanding of the tax code they are suppose to preside over.

This is all a ruse to take the wind out of the sails of the fair/flat tax initiatives. It's also another power grab by Uncle Sam; what we can't see, can't hurt us, right?

Besides, what they propose wouldn't work in my specific case as I don't receive W2s nor 1099s.

I propose that every American be forced to budget and pay quarterly estimated taxes! Get rid of employer withholding! Make Americans write a big fat check every three months so they get a real idea of how much money is being stolen from them.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I pay quarterly estimated and quarterly payroll taxes, bothers me seeing bank account crash a bit but I'm doing alright. Minnows don't cost much $8 a half pound and I can have a damn fine day.