> I'm almost unsure how to reply because you seem to ignore the central point of the comment you're replying to. Your characterization omits the most salient point: That it had to be done fast.
It had to be done fast, and it had to be handled by a department that's chronically underfunded due to decades of underfunding fueled by all the political hand-wringing for which terms like "welfare state" have become watchwords.
One could mount an argument that that's irrelevant, the real problem is that the IRS is being asked to do something like this in the first place, and there would otherwise be no need to have an organization that's well-funded and competent enough to handle things like this quickly and accurately. I personally find those sorts of arguments specious, though, by virtue of being anti-democratic. This is not Plato's Republic, and we do not get to rely on infallible philosopher kings to make our decisions. As long as there is a plurality of opinions, and as long as opinions change over time, there will always be this sort of tug-of-war and sloppiness as the policy decisions being made now interact poorly with the policy decisions that were being made at other times.
Or perhaps I should say ademocratic? It's arguably sensical to think, "Everything would work great if it just went my way," but it's best to relegate that sentiment to the world of political thought experiments. Taking it as an unstated major premise in an actual political discussion about current policy decisions in a functioning democracy is painfully impractical. It's just like code: If you try to deal with a messy legacy system by closing your eyes and blithely steamrollering along with your own clean, modern code, the end result will not be more clean and modern. It will just be an even bigger mess.