Finally, something is being done. Paying taxes should be free for most people. Especially if you only have to deal with the standard deductions.
It’s probably technically in the fine print, but it certainly felt like bait and switch the first time I ran into it over 20 years ago. I’m still bitter all these years later, and get reminded on a yearly basis, as it’s still standard practice. They can make federal “free”, because they can just lump all the costs in on the state taxes. Nothing is actually free.
It also makes no sense to me that it costs money to e-file, while sending in paperwork that a person needs to open and process is free. It seems so backward.
Maybe the IRS should start by building a tool that points you in the right direction before it tries to build a TurboTax clone.
Corrected it for you: email it to you at your personal @gov.us email (I know it is not a thing yet).
I hire a CPA to do my dead simple returns that I can do myself.
Why?
Because I don't trust myself to have done it correctly. No, I can't sincerely swear everything written is true and correct to the best of my knowledge because I do not trust myself.
That's why I hire a CPA, because I need someone I can point to for legal liability purposes. Am I throwing away money, so to speak? Perhaps, and I don't care; I'm buying peace of mind.
But if that's your concern I'm not sure automated or fill in the blanks tax software, free or not, is necessarily a good substitute.
Intuit has blocked government attempts to do that by offering free taxes for half of Americans (that was the deal).
Of course they decided to renegade and only do 37% per their advertising.
Hilarious since they had the "federal is free but you need to pay for state" scam going already.
This is how pretty much every “free” tax program works.
Now maybe you miss out on some deductions if you just transfer a few numbers to the forms. But the standard deduction is going to cover most people until you get into big mortgages or charitable writeoffs.
The thing that is blocking that happening is intense lobbying by intuit (and a few others) plus anti-tax groups. See https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-maker-of-turbotax... for what was probably that best quick summary from about 10 years ago.
Do you have any reason to believe that?
Are they your documents? Can you accrue taxes independently?
just from my personal experiences... either way, the IRS has that info, if they assume people are honest... not sure why it isn't public.
There are 36 countries that manage to do return-free taxes. They seem to have a base rate that covers most (~64% in the UK) people. The US tax code is way more complicated than one base rate for everyone. It's unclear to me how anything other than income tax is handled in these countries. Does the UK have a capital gains tax? Tax deductions?
Edit: I looked it up.
Yes, the UK has capital gains taxes and they must be calculated by the taxpayer.
https://www.gov.uk/capital-gains-tax/reporting-and-paying-ca...
There are also deductions for savings and dividends. Those deductions look a lot like the US deductions. They also (sometimes?) have to be calculated by the taxpayer.
Saving interest is often paid gross but if you go over the savings allowance and don't fill in a tax return HMRC will just automatically take more tax from your payslip.
There is also a £20,000/year ISA allowance which shields investment from tax so any holdings within an ISA can be ignored for tax purposes.
However, the dividend and CGT allowances have been reduced recently as the government tries to find ways to raise more revenue without raising the headline tax rates, and the £20k ISA allowance hasn't been raised for years despite inflation.
So as it stands, in the future a lot more people will have to start filling in tax returns.
Interest and capital gains come in sooner for Americans. Plus we have way more deductions. I can deduct business use of a home office and personal vehicle. That’s not something the IRS can know.
They just won't do it before you do. That way, they might learn things they didn't yet know, from people who decide (as legally obligated) to divulge additional information. I assume that they assume that far fewer people would divulge additional information, if their "you talk first, I talk second" tactic went away.
There are also a lot of Senators and Representatives that have a larger re-election campaign fund now as well. But that's not illegal either. There are probably elected officials on the IRS committee. They also might own shares of INTU... Even that is not criminal.
Verbs or adjective, your grammar doesn't matter. All you have to do is follow the money.
Ok so why did you say Intuit broke lobbying laws?
> (yet)
When does Intuit plan on breaking lobbying laws? Which laws? And how do you know this?
> There are also a lot of Senators and Representatives
Which ones? How many?
> that have a larger re-election campaign fund now as well.
Who contributed? How much did they contribute? Was it illegal?
> There are probably elected officials on the IRS committee.
Do you mean the United States Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation? Because by definition yes, only members of congress would be on a congressional committee. But the Joint Committee on Taxation isn’t the IRS, whose employees are not elected, because it’s a government agency, not part of congress.
> They also might own shares of INTU... Even that is not criminal.
Right but acting on inside information would be illegal.
> Verbs or adjective, your grammar doesn't matter.
In this case your grammar matters a lot. If Intuit broke lobbying laws that would be a big deal.
> All you have to do is follow the money.
I don’t have to do anything. You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you. If congress is really in Intuit’s pocket then that should be easy to demonstrate. Otherwise you are needlessly undermining faith in our institutions with tired apathetic cliches.
“Follow the money” is lame because profit alone is no evidence of wrongdoing.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without that you are just perpetuating toxic rhetoric.
I’m no fan of Intuit but so far your comments have contributed nothing but cliche unfounded anti-government negativity.
Your comments suggest you have significantly more time to spare than I do. (However, I understand this is just my interpretation.)
I'm entitled to my opinion on INTU and the government, regardless of whether it's factual or not. You're interpreting my views as anti-government negativity, which I don't agree with. Additionally, I wasn't aware that writing a research paper with proper citations was part of the conversation. To conclude, it seems your primary interest lies in debate.
Right but acting on inside information would be illegal.
You're 100% incorrect on that last point. Although not a formal legal document this article makes it pretty clear Senators and Representatives have a loophole in regards to trading on stocks. https://blogs.luc.edu/compliance/?p=4459
I will no longer respond to this thread as it's now reached the point of no return. In the meantime have a great day!
There’s certainly a line because some advertising is illegal and some isn’t.