IRS Free File is now available for the 2024 filing season
irs.gov
irs.gov
For no limit IRS Free File, just use FreeTaxUSA[1]. Not only will it be better quality than whatever the IRS/Gov has turned out, not only is it Free (as-in Beer for IRS Filing), but it also offers very cheap State Filing options ($15).
Just use FreeTaxUSA...
Which included 1099-B, because I got RSUs and sold them.
I manually entered the info about stock sale. And the end, the webapp told me, that IRS requires the copy of 1099-B, so I need to upload it. I uploaded PDF, which I got from Fidelity. That's it.
Indeed, but without the $79,000 AGI maximum.
> Just use FreeTaxUSA...
That is how the status quo remains. Hasn't served us well to be honest. Of course, use FreeTaxUSA to avoid paid options if you don't fall into the IRS pilot criteria. But if you fall into the criteria, please consider participating.
[1] https://www.irs.gov/about-irs/strategic-plan/direct-file
[2] https://www.irs.gov/about-irs/a-closer-look-at-the-irs-direc...
(i want my tax filing provided by the IRS directly, and as frictionless as possible; ymmv)
FreeTaxUSA is part of the IRS' free filing program, except it exceeds the IRS standards by offering free Federal Filing for any AGI... no maximum.
FreeTaxUSA is already marginalizing tax filing software. It cannot get cheaper than free. Additionally, they're the cheapest/easiest State Filing system I am aware of.
> > Just use FreeTaxUSA...
> That is how the status quo remains. Hasn't done very well for us tbh.
This is exactly how the status quo is destroyed. FreeTaxUSA provides the same outcome as vastly more expensive software and/or tax preparation services, at no cost to you for Federal Returns.
Furthermore, it is naïve to believe the government will provide better service and/or usability than a private organization who's entire existence and purpose is to make submitting tax returns easy.
There's the IRS Direct File pilot that is being talked about ...
https://www.irs.gov/about-irs/a-closer-look-at-the-irs-direc...
Yes, they have edited their comment since my response.
Even still, Direct File is a joke. Available in only 12 states, and excludes anyone with business income, "gig economy" income, itemization, retirement/savings credit, and childcare credits.
It also does not cover state filing either... so you get to experience the joy of doing your taxes twice.
It simply does not compare with FreeTaxUSA, or even paid offerings.
> The Direct File pilot will be available to eligible participants in these states:
> Arizona
> California
> Florida
> Massachusetts
> Nevada
> New Hampshire
> New York
> South Dakota
> Tennessee
> Texas
> Washington state
> Wyoming
> The pilot is not an option for you if you did not live in one of the 12 participating states in 2023.
Cali, Texas, Florida, and New York are some of the biggest states, but most Americans aren't eligible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
everything about the IRS is a hint saying learn how to read our regulations to take more deductions
AGI is income after most deductions
I’ve had 7 figures of revenue before and would still be able to use this during that year
The President even sent me those one-off stimmies because my AGI was under the threshold
get your agi lower
I fill out my taxes and I never have enough deductions to itemize.
if your goal is to earn and park money in a bank account, the government is trying to tell you to do literally anything else by taxing that the heaviest. their aggregate goal is for velocity within the economy because that is more useful for the government than its tax revenue, and so that is rewarded.
so its not really useful for me to write tax deductions that likely don't apply to you
right now, it is a tiny minority of the working population that does anything preemptively for tax purposes, it doesn't have to be that way.
"Normies" can probably take advantage of 20 pretty easily, if you don't already.
The "normal" way to adjust AGI down is to be a business and just not pay yourself as much and cycle everything back into the business.
But, remember, the goal is to maximize after-tax gains/revenue, not minimize taxes. You can minimize taxes by minimizing income!
yep. most of the things I like to do will satisfy that. people generally don't understand that the IRS is not this adversary that's waiting to be offended because they didn't get anything, when a lot of offices of the IRS basically helps you not pay them. Have to know how it functions and that requires education.
One example my CPA friend gave was landlords getting it good. They can both deduct depreciation and also repair costs - double dipping! Further, any interest on real estate loans they have are also tax deductible. I don't know of more specifics personally, the impression my friend gave me was that those examples are just the beginning.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2011/10/12/warren-b...
1099 software engineers have some of the best tax deductions, and that earnings range is the sweet spot
one of my favorite things to do is contribute $66,000 to a 401k for that tax deduction (thats how high the employer match limit really is), immediately borrow $50,000 from the 401k and donate that same money to a donor advised fund for a charitable donation. $116,000 tax deduction before looking at actual expenses. its not advice, its one of my favorite things to do, you have to pay back the 401k over time
off $265,000 in earnings (number chosen because thats the minimum to max out a self directed 401k) the AGI would be $199,000 and the MAGI would be $149,000. keep going and get it as low as possible. I would typically try to do a FMV charitable deduction from my existing portfolio. Combined cash+asset charitable deductions can lower that year’s earnings by 60%. if you achieve that the government is only looking for taxes on $106,000 and again this is before you look for expenses. But if there are pre-existing externalities like a mortgage and home depreciation, then you’re pushing your AGI (and subsequently MAGI) down further and further.
you can get to Warren Buffett %’s pretty easily even without having long term capital gains tax treatment.
gov gets zero, gov agrees, gov helps
And you are also permanently out $50K of charitable contribution in just a single year. Pretty hard to justify if you have young kids who might go to college some day, or if your spouse doesn't wish to contribute to charity at that level.
And somewhere in your example you seem to forget that charitable contributions reduce taxable income, but not AGI.
Lastly, you forgot to take into account the deductions for self employed health insurance, and the deduction for half of self-employment (SUTA) tax, both of which reduce the amount available for retirement plan contributions.
my comment mentions MAGI specifically for someone like you, I’m aware this thread started off with being able to use the IRS’ free filing software and now is talking about not paying the government much or anything in taxes
Not sure what you mean by "control", but you are not getting it back. In one year, you have blown a $50K hole in your budget that you will never be able to spend on anything else.
by your hyperbolic word choice, I understand its important for you to be right about your view. don't do it then.
years 2 - n the tax exempt nonprofit account grows tax free, after its balance is large enough it can independently be an investor in VC/PE/Hedge Funds and have an infinite time horizon. just keep funding it until the homerun.
the same goes for the tax deferred retirement accounts, they are separate entities and can eventually become investors for higher risk higher growth things
they can be generational wealth things as well that allow for influence from your family, without the complications around ex-spouses, inheritance tax, cost basis adjustments, liability. just everything at your discretion while remaining judgement proof.
if its not for you then employ a different strategy
I'm referring to your choice to donate hundreds of thousands to charity so you can save a few thousand on your taxes.
your own private foundation would be under your control as well and can pay a salary - taxed as normal ordinary income - whenever that becomes important to you
Either your CPA friend is ignorant (since after all not all CPAs specialize in income tax) or you misunderstood.
Depreciation is how the cost of placing a new asset in service is spread over time to match the income generated by the asset (roughly speaking). Repairs are the cost of keeping existing in-service assets in normal operating condition. There is no double dipping.
As for mortgage interest, only interest on the loans used to acquire or improve the property are deductible, not cash-out equity loans. This is basically the same rule that owners of their own principal residence get to use, although there are some temporary limits that can reduce the full deduction, especially for those in areas with expensive houses for sale.
I might have misunderstood, but he was keeping it simple for me. I'm 100% positive that he was correct though, to what angle - I'm not exactly sure.
After doing some more research on my own, I think the double-dipping stands. In essence it comes down to a statement like this: "my property is worth less year over year - look, the shingles are starting to come off! Oh, by the way, I spent $2000 fixing the shingles."
So, first, let's tackle depreciation. For rental, the entire property value depreciates and this is tax deductible. It's about 3% of the property value every year [2], regardless of any repairs. If there is an improvement made, that changes the cost basis [2, 4] which then changes the size of the pie where 3% is then taken out of that [2]. In essence, the IRS, per the tax code, essentially thinks that a rental property after 25 years will be worth nothing. To some extent, this makes some sense, appliances wear out, buildings do need maintenance and eventually they are re-modeled and re-done.
But, repairs & depreciation are mutually exclusive for the tax code, so long as that repair does not enter the 'improvement' territory. So, if you fix all of things that are depreciating, you still get to claim the depreciation overall, and you get to claim the repair costs of those depreciating items.
These are the resources I used:
[1] https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
[2] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/060815/how-r...
[3] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/tips-maximizing-repa...
[4] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/top-ten-tax-deductio...
[1] is interesting and has this key quote:
> You can deduct the costs of certain materials, supplies, repairs, and maintenance that you make to your rental property to keep your property in good operating condition
Note, it does not say "or" repairs, and that list does not include improvements. Basically this is to say, a $100,000 property after one year of renting, to the IRS is worth $97,000 - whether or not there was actually $3000 worth of wear and tear is immaterial, and if you spent $3000 to fix that wear and tear is also immaterial, you get to claim the depreciation and repairs both.
The [4] reference really emphasizes why land lords do not want to replace things, and instead will focus on repairs:
> Landlord Tax Deduction #3: Repairs A significant tax break for landlords can arise when they make repairs to their properties: The cost of repairs to rental property (provided the repairs are ordinary, necessary, and reasonable in amount) are fully deductible in the year in which they are incurred. Good examples of deductible repairs include repainting, fixing gutters or floors, fixing leaks, plastering, and replacing broken windows.
For some completeness, resource #4 addresses depreciation as the 2nd bullet point right before repairs:
> Landlord Tax Deduction #2: Depreciation for Rental Real Property The actual cost of a house, apartment building, or other rental property is not fully deductible in the year in which you pay for it. Instead, landlords get back the cost of real estate through depreciation. This involves deducting a portion of the cost of the property over several years (27.5 years for residential real property). Landlords can reap the benefits of depreciation even if the property increases in value.
Thus, my conclusion - if a person is fixing everything that is breaking and wearing out in a rental property - I don't see how exactly that property is depreciating by 3% every year. The depreciating things are getting fixed! I would call that double dipping. Reasonable people might still disagree.
Though, to the larger point, resource [4] has a section "Other Important Tax Tips for Landlords", reading through that list is a whole slew of things not available to W2 employees, eg: "A special tax rule permits some landlords to deduct 100% of their rental property losses every year, no matter how much." Taken in aggregate, tax-wise, it seems FAR better to be a landlord than a W2 employee. (A peer comment noted that 1099 get really great tax treatment, and that's basically the gist of it. If you can claim you are own your own boss - the tax breaks are huge, otherwise for the run-of-the-mill W2 - there are lot less tax breaks).
There still is no double dipping. If you buy a $100K asset, and over its depreciable life you also spend $15K on repairs, then you have spent $115K in total and you only deducted $115K, not a penny more -- so no double dipping. Also, FWIW, if you later sell the fully depreciated asset, the entire sale price is taxable income.
>A special tax rule permits some landlords to deduct 100% of their rental property losses every year, no matter how much.
Yes, if one qualifies as a "real estate professional" (not easy for anyone who is not a full-time landlord). However, a successful real estate professional is not going to stay in business long if they have large losses every year.
I'm certainly somewhat cynical, IMO it is the rich that write the tax codes and laws... [1] I do wonder if the sale can be readily gamed. For example, do the sale after retirement, in a year where you have lots of stock losses from a recession or something.
Regardless, I appreciate the added context!
[1] https://www.thenation.com/article/society/cbo-american-wealt...
Renting is a business. You can say let's tax gross income (and some places do that) but in general in the US only net income is taxed. That is income after costs. For renting there is the cost of the property, there is interest on various loans, there is the cost of maintenance and repairs, there is the cost of upgrades, there is utilities and local taxes, etc. For income there is the rent, and there is the proceeds from the sale of the property at the end, etc.
The cost of the property is a cost - that's hard to argue. The question would be how to take it into account. It's currently taken into account with depreciation (of the building, not the land for that matter.) A certain percentage every year goes against the income until it's fully depreciated. And then when the building is sold, the part of the cost that was depreciated is taxed (there is yet another calculation to decide at what rate it's taxed - depreciation reduced basis but "sale minus basis" does not necessarily get taxed at capital gains rate.)
The hows can get complicated but the general principle of "how to take into account the business costs" is pretty simple? And the building cost and maintenance are both costs. Doesn't really matter in there how long the building is supposed to last. It's a fairly arbitrary number in the calculation.
[If you do want to look at preferential treatment, you can look at "like kind exchange"]
Yet, you do raise a good point, a building for a landlord is akin to a server for an IT company - both are tax write-offs. The world is full of nuance though.. I really appreciate the dialog.
No, it is not. As the name implies, it is gross income, adjusted for certain (but nowhere near most) deductions.
Itemized (or standard) deduction is subtracted from AGI to arrive at taxable income. Also, a temporary provision for something called QBI might be deducted from AGI to arrive at taxable income.
(Also, as noted in the parallel comment, the forms can be submitted online, separately from the Free File service)
We are know that the tax codes are intentionally complicated and big firms don't want government to fix them. Rules being complected allows having loopholes for certain people.
The tax code in the US (and the filing process) is overcomplicated for a variety of political, corporate, and cultural reasons.
The average US taxpayer is under-educated on finances generally and tax code specifically.
That said, the W-4 is one area that’s actually gotten simpler in recent years. I simultaneously think the tax code needs serious simplification and that the average person has the capacity to read a W-4 and get reasonably close on their withholding. The reason many of them don’t is because they like getting a refund check once a year.
For profit tax-co’s: do back door deals with the government to prevent lower-income/competence individuals from working directly with the gov’t while engaging in dark patterns to make the lower cost products harder to use/find
This guy: It’s the citizen’s fault and they get what they deserve for having other priorities than wealth management!
I think it’s fair to assume that all users want taxation to be as close to 0 overage as possible while also wanting all overage returned as quickly as possible. Anyone not working towards that sucks and is the universal enemy.
I know plenty of people who do not want their tax return to be close to zero. They like getting a big refund check back. This is the kind of person being described in the comment I replied to.
https://www.gao.gov/blog/more-delays-ahead-pandemic-continue...
I like 1040now.net. The UI is atrocious but it basically just offers an HTML version of the actual IRS forms. If all you need is a 1040 and a W2, then you just fill those out and skip the rest of the forms. I've been using it for several years. It costs $20 to file your federal returns if you make more than a certain amount, and it also offers State tax filing as well
Probably the same reason large companies don't launch new features to their entire userbase all at once.
I got mad enough paying H&R Block a couple years ago and decided to download the fillable PDFs and do it manually. It was a good learning experience. Since I'm filling out the PDF forms anyway I wish I could just upload those to FFFF, instead of having to re-enter everything manually.
Still it's better than my state (Indiana) where I can't file online without a third party. It does bring me some satisfaction that I fill out the PDF forms, print them, mail them to the state, and someone gets to (probably) type it all back in to a computer. Efficient.
And the next year they brought it back. Because of me, I'm sure. ;)
But until the IRS has full service online, I'm not paying a third party out of principle. The only time I shell out is if it gets too complex, and then I pay an accountant.
Of course, the tax prep industry engaged in all sorts of dark patterns to make actually obtaining the legally-required-to-be-free software for free as difficult as possible, so the IRS is now working on its own free tax prep software (which is the Direct File system, not the Free File system).
As of 2019-12-26, the IRS no longer promises the non-compete [3], perhaps so it could start the Direct File pilot [4].
---
[1]: From the summary of the proposed original agreement at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/08/08/02-1983...:
> The Consortium will offer Free Services to taxpayers at no cost. [...] During the term of the Agreement, the IRS will not compete with the Consortium in providing free, online tax return preparation and filing services to taxpayers.
[2]: "70%" source: see 4.1.3(i) of latest MOU: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-efile/ninth-memorandum-of-unders...
+info: https://www.irs.gov/e-file-providers/about-the-free-file-all...
[3]: Point (ii) of https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/FFI%20Signed%20MOU%20Addendu...
[4]: https://www.irs.gov/about-irs/strategic-plan/direct-file
Before digging into this, I thought the IRS set the income limit. (e.g. "We the IRS want all people earning less than $65k to have free tax prep.")
It appears it was the other way around: the memos show the IRS sets the % of the population it wants to have free tax prep services (70%), and the FreeFile income limits are calculated so in theory only the highest (30%) of incomes must pay for tax prep.
So I speculate that the answer to "Why is there an income limit?” may be "It was part of an attempt between the IRS and the private sector to have the richest 30% subsidize everyone else's tax prep."
https://www.irs.gov/e-file-providers/free-file-fillable-form...
> Taxpayers, including active-duty military, with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $79,000 or less in 2023 can likely find an offer from an IRS Free File provider that matches their needs. Some providers also offer free state tax return preparation. Those with an AGI over the limit can still file their return for free using Free File Fillable Forms.
Free File Fillable Forms will open January 29, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. EST
https://www.irs.gov/e-file-providers/free-file-fillable-form...
Messy tax code = +time/money required, +scared will be prosecuted for messing up something unintentionally, +loopholes available, +hire some more IRS staff & police
Easy & clear tax code = -time/money required, -scared will be prosecuted for messing up something unintentionally, -loopholes available, -hire some more IRS staff & police
(apologies for those who make their living via our complicated tax system. If you're in the IRS, I appreciate those who have been helpful but like cancer treatment centers I wish there wasn't a need for you)
> scared will be prosecuted for messing up something unintentionally
Just to provide a data point on this, I have screwed up my taxes twice and been contacted a year later or so by the IRS with a letter informing me about the discrepancy and how much they thought I owed. In both cases (each time due to options cost basis issues) I hired a pro to refile and paid the extra tax plus a small penalty.The IRS has pretty good customer support and gives people plenty of opportunity to correct mistakes. No one is getting prosecuted unless they are willfully and persistently evading taxes.
Free file as a concept has existed since 2001 when Congress passed some legislation about it.
[click here] so we won't sell your information
[click here] to disable data collection
[click here] to make us less cooperative with police
I'm European. I've lived in the US a couple of years.
The thing is.... you're NOT charged to file your taxes. Filing your taxes is free. People have the option to pay a company that helps them file their taxes.
The peculiarity of the US isn't that you're charged but that the government's own system is shit (which is why many people choose to pay). This isn't uniquely American. I'm sure there's other countries where filing your taxes is a pain - though maybe not in Europe (?).
In the vast majority of cases the IRS will just send you a letter asking you to pay what you owe.
But they won’t tell you you were wrong for a few years, during which time interest accrues.
(Source, just paid 5k in taxes+interest for the 2021 year after IRS sent me a letter saying my stock selling profit calculations were off by 4.5k. I think they were wrong (I was certainly wrong too) but I can file an update and get a refund on my next taxes if so. Better to stop the interest accessing while I figure out my bases)
Why do people keep repeating this? It's so obviously wrong I can't believe that saying it can be anything other than bad faith. I have miscalculated my taxes twice now: in both cases, the IRS sent me a letter explaining the mistake and what I still owed, I wrote them a check for that amount, and that was it. No "felony" or even the faintest hint of one was in play. The letters even had an apologetic tone and suggestions for how to set up payment plans, as well as multiple ways to dispute the charges.
https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-f...
Last year I had an error on a form. The finanzamt sent me a letter (from a real person). My partner was able to call and ask some clarification questions. We filed the correction and it was no big deal. I wasn't in any risk of going to jail or being the target of a lawsuit.
Yes, getting a tax advisor (Steuerberater) here is very difficult, and sometimes necessary. But otherwise, the system is way less intrusive than the US's in my opinion.
Slow, sure. But not dangerous.
This is almost verbatim what would occur in the US as well if the IRS believed there was a mistake on your tax filing. People just keep repeating false information about the IRS year after year, and nobody fact checks anything they read from random people on the internet, that now everyone thinks if you miss a zero on your tax filing you committed a felony or something.
Calling US tax filing unnecessarily annoying and in-need of improvement just isn't enough for some people. They need to make up stories and baseless claims to spread fear or something.
If it's a simple arithmetic error, the IRS will sometimes silentliy fix it for you and you'll never know.
The reason the government's system has historically been terrible is because of lobbying on the part of Intuit (maker of TurboTax) and others.
There was a great episode of Patriot Act a few years ago that discussed this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xQQkzWhMOc
The point being made is that anything beyond income tax is essentially impossible to automate since the government cannot (and I believe should not) track your cost side. For instance, the solar tax credit in the US is a scout's honor type form where you can put whatever cost you want to claim that are eligible without receipts. If you get audited, you better hope you can conjure those receipts. How could the government automate such a form?
There is no need for the obvious, public, easily accessible tax filing system to be designed around the needs of that 10% (I am in that 10%, btw).
Since 2008, brokerage firms are required to include sales and their cost basis information on 1099-B forms. There's technically no reason these couldn't be electronically transmitted to the IRS in a standard format.
https://www.finra.org/investors/insights/cost-basis-and-your...
> For instance, the solar tax credit in the US is a scout's honor type form where you can put whatever cost you want to claim that are eligible without receipts.
This is true, but as you say, the consequences of an audit and discovery of the fraud are meant to deter it.
> How could the government automate such a form?
Create a website where the solar installer registers the installation and enters the cost information of the project, and the taxpayer claims the record and associates it with their tax records. They are already doing something like this for car dealers for the EV tax credits:
https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/register-your-dealers...
I imagine that for really expensive sales, the answer is consult with your accountant.
And of course lots of things happen with cash as long as the amounts aren't too great.
A segment of the population believes that the responsibility is on the government to prove you filed incorrectly. Giving them the authority to collect whatever information they want on you is an issue of privacy. Personally, I'm opposed to businesses sending the government all your information not because I want to make life harder for myself/others at tax time but because I don't believe the information will be used only for taxes. The solar example was meant to emphasize the point that the government can only automate the process if every single purchase is marked and accounted for. Giving them the authority to track all purchases (both digital and physical) or mandating others to record said purchases sets a dangerous precedent. Hopefully we could agree on that.
I'm not arguing that it's free. Nor am I arguing for sending information about every trade someone makes to the IRS. I'm arguing that since they have to generate a summary 1099-B anyways, why not just transmit it to the IRS electronically? There's no change in privacy, since presumably today you'd follow the law and submit the information from your 1099s to the IRS anyways.
3rd parties convince you taxes are complex via underhanded tricks, but that doesn't mean they are. There is a reason tax software puts lots of delays in - they want to you think your computer needs time to do the complex calculations. There is a reason tax preparers interview you and then don't give you the taxes filled out instantly - they want you to think there is a lot of hard work left. Has your tax preparer ever told you that some tax deductible things are not worth deducting or did they just look at and ignore the receipt - that is a way to make taxes seem complex.
If you own a small business your taxes might be complex. However most people have been fooled into thinking their taxes are harder than they really are.
I'm guessing it's far more about the rise of shopping mall tax prep than Intuit lobbying.
It is a policy that goes back decades. Reagan was notably adamant that "Taxes should hurt" to the point that he opposed the very idea of withholding taxes. He was the reason that California was the last state with an income tax to start automatically withholding taxes.
>Higher taxes aren't really more complicated to pay.
That isn't the argument. The idea is that the more painful the tax paying process is, the more likely Americans will oppose the very idea of taxes. It is very simple form of Pavlovian conditioning. Preparing taxes is a painful and awful process and people naturally associate that with the very idea of taxes.
It's going to have to be rewritten with another billion dollars spent so it can "integrate" with state systems, which will be so broken and insecure the IRS will probably discontinue it and then just partner with turbotax or something after it gets breached for the 5th or 6th time.
Most people here have never seen how government software is made and it shows. There is a reason the NWS does not make a weather app, and it is because it was too obvious how much of a scam government software was when it came out to be in the millions to make.