Imagine a world where, instead of having to manually fill out the same boxes on your tax forms every year, the IRS filled out your paperwork for you in advance and told you how much they think you owe, using information the IRS already gets from banks and employers. If you agreed with their estimate, you could just sign the paperwork and return it. If you disagreed with their estimate, you could file your taxes the way you have been doing.
Sounds like a pretty good deal, right?
Not for the makers of TurboTax, the online tax-preparation software that millions of Americans use to file their taxes every year. Intuit, the company that owns TurboTax, has lobbied hard to prevent automatic tax filing from becoming a reality.
On Monday, ProPublica followed up on its report from last year about Intuit’s attempts to stymie return-free tax-filing legislation. ProPublica found that, in the past five years, Intuit has spent $11.5 million lobbying against return-free filing at the federal level.
The company has fought return-free filing at the state level as well. Back in 2009, California was working to implement ReadyReturn, a state program that helps low-income taxpayers file their taxes for free. Intuit ferociously lobbied against the program, and donated $1 million to a group fighting the election of state Comptroller John Chiang, who helped put the program in place.
Intuit says the IRS would exploit a return-free filing system to vacuum up as much revenue from taxpayers as possible.
“Return Free minimizes the taxpayers’ voice and instead maximizes revenue collection for government,” Julie Miller, an Intuit representative, told National Journal. “That kind of anticonsumer policy does not advance taxpayer rights, citizen empowerment, or real simplification of the tax code.”
But it isn’t just the IRS that has a vested interest in controlling how Americans pay their taxes. More than 24 million people used TurboTax to file their taxes in 2012, and the program accounted for 35 percent of Intuit’s $4.2 billion in revenue that year.
As Jordan Weissman at Slate notes, there is a more reasonable argument for not adopting a return-free filing system: The system would be less convenient for Americans with complex taxes, or for small businesses who need to give payroll information to the IRS to help out their employees. But as many as 44 percent of taxpayers would have an easier time filing their taxes, according to the Treasury Department.
Republicans would probably agree with Intuit that the IRS is not the best arbiter of how much money people owe the government. They have little trust for the IRS since the agency was accused of targeting tea-party groups for audits. A system like return-free filing, which hands more power to the IRS, would cause a political ruckus. And as long as filing your taxes remains a frustrating, overly complex process, antitax conservatives like Grover Norquist will continue to have a political punching bag.
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."