Slashdot Mirror


H&R Block Goofs on Its Own Taxes

omar.nyc writes "Red Herring reports tax preparation giant H&R Block, manufacturer of TaxCut and other tax software, goofed on its own taxes. The miscalculation on its state income taxes are liable by $32 million. This will reduce Block's fiscal year 2005 earnings by $0.02 per share and $0.02 per share in fiscal year 2004." From the article: "Besides the problems that Block had with its own tax prep needs, the company also experienced difficulties with the technology in its offices last month that hit its bottom line early in tax season. 'Technology problems across the H&R Block network in early January impacted our ability to serve clients in those crucial early weeks,' said Block Chairman Mark A. Ernst. He said the problems had been corrected, but they impacted the company's ability to serve 250,000 clients at that time of year."

170 comments

  1. LAWL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  2. asdf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    asdf

  3. uh oh by lordkuri · · Score: 1

    hope they paid for the insurance!

  4. Red Herring goofs too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    <title id="PageTitle">RED HERRING | H&amp;amp;R Block Goofs on Its Taxes</title>
    Thank God they're not a web development company.
  5. Use a professional tax service by dotslashdot · · Score: 4, Funny

    They should really have someone professional do their taxes.

    1. Re:Use a professional tax service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny and all, but I doubt H & R block allows real accountants within a two block radius of their branch offices. They're purely McDonalds level service.

    2. Re:Use a professional tax service by RiffRafff · · Score: 1

      They should really have someone professional do their taxes.

      They did; they used Jackson Hewitt!

      --
      "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
    3. Re:Use a professional tax service by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      or even TurboTax?

    4. Re:Use a professional tax service by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      That is funny. The one time my dad didn't do his taxes himself and went to them he got audited. From that year on he would spent hours upon hours trying to figure out all his tax crap; he was a travelling salesman.

      From that day on, I vowed I would never have my taxes done by them. Now I'm almost tempted to out of sheer laziness.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
  6. So? by Eideewt · · Score: 1

    This is amusing and all, but is it really news for nerds? It's barely even stuff that matters.

    1. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxes are news for everyone. Stuff that matters.

    2. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to get flamed for this (and probably rightly so ... but I'll post anon because I am a coward), but this story has just come of page 1 of digg. I'm sure every "news" item that makes dig gets a slashdot submission (before or after) regardless of whether or not it's news for nerds.

      In this case, we've just seen that the editors sometimes get confused about what this site is all about. Unless being a Tax nerd is the new thing?

      This site is becoming a shadow of it's former self (I remember the quality of posts and stories was much higher in the days when you would barely get 100 posts on the biggest of story). But this site has one redeeming feature that keeps it alive - the moderation system. If digg used slashcode, there would be no more slashdot.

      I haven't been to kuro5hin in ages (like 3 or 4 years). I only visited a couple of times and didn't get into it. Can any regulars there make an objective assessment on it's merits in comparison to Slashdot?

    3. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      k5 has like 3-5 stories a week. Due to the smaller number of users (and the front page diaries) it's a lot more personal feeling. I don't know (or care) who you or anybody else here is, but on k5 you get to recognize a lot of usernames.

      I've been reading /. since the late 90s, and I really agree that it has changed... used to be there were a few good interesting stories a day, now it's only a few a week.

    4. Re:So? by dgb2n · · Score: 1

      This also came out Thursday when they released their earnings:

      http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/060223/20060223005898.html ?.v=1

      This only really matters if you can do something with the information. Between the time that this news came out and the end of market close on Friday, the stock dropped 8.6%.

      This might have mattered on Thursday.

    5. Re:So? by HTL2001 · · Score: 1

      I suppose it matters a lot if you're a stock holder... and I assume this was supposed to be a stable company...

      other than that, it definatly should have gotten the foot, because thats the only reason I'm here

      --
      By reading this, you have given me brief control of your mind.
    6. Re:So? by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about, I just dropped off all my tax papers with them. Damn the news for now coming out sooner.

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    7. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, you have the wrong address. Foot fetishes are over at slashfiction.org

  7. Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by layer3switch · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to H&R Block's website;
    http://www.hrblock.com/
    "Fast Money
    Walk into an office with your taxes, and walk out with an Instant Money Refund Anticipation loan check. Up to $9,999 based on your refund amount. Money in your hands fast."


    People, don't ever EVER get your tax refund this way. You may be in a financial jam or just impatient to get your money, but this is sure way to loose your money in a blink of an eye, and possibly the most stupidist thing you can ever do. The % you loose due to interest rate for loan in this case is highly unregulated and its easy to get scammed.

    Here is a quick article on pending lawsuit against H&R Block in California, posted on MSNBC.
    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11373754/

    Just wait 3 weeks and get your full refund (if you don't owe that is), or ready to get charged 500% on that refund.

    --
    "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    1. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully H&R Block gets bent over and fucked in the ass. I hate reading about piece of shit companies who pull this shit, especially taking advantage of low-income folks.

      Lockyer wants Kansas City, Missouri-based H&R Block to reimburse customers in an amount he said could reach the hundreds of millions of dollars, and pay a civil fine of at least $20 million........In December, H&R Block said it agreed to pay $62.5 million to settle four class-action lawsuits over the loans. Last May, a federal judge in Chicago rejected a $360 million nationwide settlement raising similar issues, calling the sum inadequate.

      I know this type of shit happens alot, but it is nice to see the rare times that the companies actually pay for their evil deeds ... just gotta hope that the judges dont let them get off easy for this.

    2. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Loose vs. Lose.

      Thank you,

      The Nitpicker's Association of America

    3. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Reignking · · Score: 1

      $9,999? Just below the 10k level that you have to report to the Feds? At least H&R Block got that one right :)

      --
      One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    4. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Deathlizard · · Score: 1

      Just wait 3 weeks and get your full refund

      Why wait when E-filing cuts that time in half.

      My Tax Preparer (an independent, no national chain) had an option to E-File direct deposit into your personal checking account. I usually get my refund back in less than 2 weeks, this year I got it in less than 5 days, which is the fastest I've ever seen it come back. I've also found that the earlier you do your taxes the faster it seems to come back.

    5. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      I usually get my refund back in less than 2 weeks, this year I got it in less than 5 days, which is the fastest I've ever seen it come back.

      E-file batches are processed on Thursday. If your e-file is accepted in the Thursday batch you should get your direct deposit by the next Friday. There's a table in this publication.

    6. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Glonoinha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't fear-monger and don't blow shit out of proportion just to make your point. If you do that then the terrorists have already won.
      Yes, there is a fee associated with doing their taxes, and there is a fee to get their 'instant refund' - but you saying that they are 'charging 500% on that refund' is just sensationalizing the event.

      Charging 500% means charging $500 on a $100 refund - that is not what is happening here.
      They (and by proxy, you) are using voodoo math to come up with scary numbers but hiding the details of what you are doing. Here's the real deal:

      Let us use some simple numbers, to bring some reality to the table :
      Poor person has an income of $40,000 for the year and had $10,000 taken out of their pay check over the year. They obviously 'overpaid' their taxes and are getting a refund.
      Say their real tax bill after exemptions is $5,000. They are going to get $5,000 back.
      Take their W2 papers to H&R Block to have a simple 1040EZ cranked out. That is one form, HRB charges (lets pretend) $50 to do that one.
      They do have a bank account, and want to file electronic filing (this may be required to do the 'instant refund'). This is one form, HRB charges another $50 to do that one.
      They want their 'instant refund' - this is yet another form, and HRB charges $50 to do that one, and charges them 1% of their refund in 'interest' on the loan (this is $100.)

      Net fees and interest = $250 to get their taxes done and walk out with $4,750 in cash in their hand.
      IRS refund comes back in 7 days because they electronically filed it on a Friday (refunds are electronically dispersed on Fridays, best of my knowledge.)
      Fees + interest of $250 on $5,000 is 5%. That is the real math, and it doesn't look too sleazy (considering it includes Tax Prep.)
      $250 worth of fees and interest on a $5,000 'loan' for 7 days comes out to an APR of 260% interest - which is really scary. Add in (and charge for) a few more forms (such as the one poor people use to get the earned income credit), use more real numbers so they are only getting back $2,500 so the fee : refund ratio goes up and all of a sudden the $300 dollar charge to process their taxes and front them the $2,200 in cash looks like 500% in interest. Which is bogus, plain and simple.

      Yes I went to HRB this year to do my taxes, after I had already done them once by hand. Cost me $200, and their calculation netted me $500 more than when I did it myself. Having it e-filed and going into my checking account, and no I didn't get the 'instant refund' - but if I really really needed the $3,500 right then that day and couldn't have waited another two weeks, would it have been worth another $100 to walk out with cash? Yea, and the 'interest' would have been 3%, not some made up magic math 500%.

      Another fun tidbit of information - you can walk into HRB, have them do your taxes front to back, tell you all the tricks they are using and watch them go through it step by step and if you don't like their numbers (or fees, or whatever) you can walk out for free. No charge - but you don't get any of their paperwork. Have a good memory? You can walk in, watch them do it on TaxCut or whatever, walk out for free and go home and do the exact same refund using any number of cheap tax prep packages. Same refund, if you paid attention to whatever they did, and you don't have to pay their fees. The only thing you give up is having them stand by your side if the auditors come pay you a visit on that return.

      I think they are clowns for blowing their corporate taxes, and I agree with you that going with the 'instant refund' is a real stupid idea, but that doesn't mean we need to resort to twisting the numbers or blowing things out of proportion to make them 'scary' and 'evil'. That's what the MebiByte fuckers did with hard drive space, and we all know how much I hate them.

      If you want to do some REAL math, let a bunch of people do their own income taxes, particularly those with more than two forms, then walk into HR

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    7. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you play hide and go hang yourself?

    8. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Nimey · · Score: 1

      You forgot "most stupidist". Drop the most (because it's redundant) and it's spelled "stupidest".

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    9. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      For the record, $40,000 ain't poor.

      The ONLY three reasons to have a "professional" do your taxes are (1) you're getting a sizable refund and want a RAL, (2) You're of below-average ability when it comes to numbers, and need someone else to do them, (3) you're a homeowner, a business owner, or make enough to hit the A.M.T.

      For all the rest of us, H&R block is a scam. If you passed high school, you can pay your taxes. If you have kids or go to school, there are a small handful of tax credits you care about --> most non-homeowners with kids will ONLY get a tax refund if they file for the EITC, and it's one form that's easy to file.

      And, just in case you get stuck or don't know what you're doing, the IRS and all fifty states have toll-free tax assistance lines. You can even ask "are there any credits or deductions I could take?" and they may run down the list for you.

      IRS line: 1-800-829-1040 for individuals.
      NYS line: 1-800-225-5829 for individuals.

      Oh, and it's easy to pay 500% for a RAL. All you need is a refund of less than $10 -- and it's all too easy to wind up with that. In fact, if you did your W-4 and kin right, that SHOULD be what you get.

    10. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Well, the APR that's usually calculated is based solely on the fee for the RAL. And if you call it an APR there's nothing voodoo about the math, that's how an APR is calculated.

      Yes, H&R Block will often get people more money, even after fees, than they would have gotten on their own. But they're still sleazy people for the most part. I took the H&R Block tax class, though I wound up working for myself and now for a CPA firm. The woman who taught the class told us about how she would help the people prepare their W-4s (for a fee), and would basically trick the customers into withholding too much. To which I responded "so you charge people to tell them to give too much money to the government, and then you charge them again to get their own money back faster?" She didn't like that comment, but I still did wind up getting an "A". I didn't bother applying for a job with them, though.

      And it's not like H&R Block doesn't screw up people's returns. I've done many amendments for people who came to me or my employer after going to H&R Block, and I've gotten them thousands of dollars in refunds that H&R Block missed. And yes, I'm sure I've missed things myself too, but if you want competance H&R Block probably isn't the best place to go. "Take it to a pro"? Sure. But when you go to H&R Block you're paying nearly as much as you'd pay to a CPA or enrolled agent and you're paying it to someone who is essentially nothing more than an educated salesperson (employees are paid on commission and get special bonuses for all the RALs and other scams they sell people, in fact we were told flat out even before getting hired that pushing the "rapid refund" and "peace of mind" crap was mandatory).

    11. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      The ONLY three reasons to have a "professional" do your taxes are (1) you're getting a sizable refund and want a RAL

      I guess we're not talking about *good* reasons, because RALs from H&R Block are *never* a good deal. Seriously, never. There's *always* a better alternative. (If nothing else, a RAL from someone other than H&R Block, but usually there's an ever better alternative than that).

      (2) You're of below-average ability when it comes to numbers, and need someone else to do them

      Not just numbers, but tax law... It's also a matter of whether or not you have the time to carefully read the forms. Actually, how good you are with numbers is pretty irrelevant, just use a computer or a calculator. And merely being "above average" probably isn't enough. I've done taxes for a lot of intelligent people who have made major mistaken assumptions about how to fill out a tax form. Hell, about half the people who are the primary income maker for a family probably think they're "head of houshold".

      (3) you're a homeowner, a business owner, or make enough to hit the A.M.T.

      Just on the first two you've included a whole lot of people. And just making a lot of money is almost never going to make you "hit the AMT". The most common way to "hit the AMT" is to have a lot of employee business deductions, and the majority of the time that only is going to be a consideration if you're a homeowner (the standard deduction is quite large).

      Oh, and it's easy to pay 500% for a RAL. All you need is a refund of less than $10 -- and it's all too easy to wind up with that.

      Why would someone get a RAL for a refund of less than $10? I don't even think most H&R Block employees are sleazy enough to let someone do that.

      In fact, if you did your W-4 and kin right, that SHOULD be what you get.

      If you (and your wife, if you're married) have one job, no other income, and are eligible for zero credits, maybe. Otherwise it's actually pretty difficult to get it right. And it's almost never done. People give me strange looks when I tell them I filled out my W-4 with 8 exemptions (and my household has only 2 people in it). But even with that, I still managed to get a sizeable refund. Bush has been really gracious to us below-average income taxpayers.

    12. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      I guess we're not talking about *good* reasons, because RALs from H&R Block are *never* a good deal. Seriously, never. There's *always* a better alternative. (If nothing else, a RAL from someone other than H&R Block, but usually there's an ever better alternative than that).

      Not just talking about H&R Block here. Anyone, from H&R to their competitors to CPAs, is covered here.

      Not just numbers, but tax law... It's also a matter of whether or not you have the time to carefully read the forms.

      You're right. You need to be able to follow instructions, and ask help when you don't understand. Doing one's own taxes requires the dramatic requirement of a high school degree.

      Just on the first two you've included a whole lot of people. And just making a lot of money is almost never going to make you "hit the AMT". The most common way to "hit the AMT" is to have a lot of employee business deductions, and the majority of the time that only is going to be a consideration if you're a homeowner (the standard deduction is quite large).

      Thanks for the correction on the AMT.

      As for homeowners and business owners -- yes, a whole lot of people own their home. But homeownership isn't even close to 50% nationwide -- more people rent or lease than own, and there's no special deduction for that. And most of us who don't own a home have no easy way to start a business large enough for the IRS to care about. (The tax ramifications from my wife walking in parades with her family are negligible.)

      If you (and your wife, if you're married) have one job, no other income, and are eligible for zero credits, maybe. Otherwise it's actually pretty difficult to get it right.

      Yep. I hate the W-4, and the pre-calculator way income taxes are withheld in general. (Why not a flat percentage of gross wages, after a deduction equal to the taxpayer's expected deduction divided bu the number of paychecks?)

      But I also know people who would go to H&R block if I didn't urge them not to--mostly by checking their taxes and showing them how little a refund they're going to get. (Which reminds me, that I need to go talk to that person, as the single-no-child EITC limit was a lot higher than I thought...)

    13. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The $10k limit in cash transactions has long been lowered to $3000. To fight terrorists and all, of course.

    14. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. YOU don't report it to the Feds, the banks do.

      2. Can you site where this was lowered to $3k from $10k?

    15. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about:

      People, stop giving the government interest-free loans. Stop getting refunds, period. Adjust your witholdings so that you owe at the end - GET an interest-free loan.

      People who are happy to "get" $7000 in Spring are just clueless..

    16. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Buran · · Score: 1

      So tax preparers are all terrorists now?

      Good god, I thought the bullshit had been stretched thin as it was.

      The poster you responded to does have a point -- "refund anticipation" loans ARE often ripoffs and it's a good idea to avoid them unless you REALLY REALLY need the money now. I filed in early February and I had my refund on the 13th. My full refund. (though I did have to pay a little for the state filing/prep and the fed prep, fed E-file was free for me). If you are smart enough to plan ahead financially, which you should be doing in any case, you shouldn't be throwing your money away on a "refund anticipation loan".

    17. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its odd that the government allows that kind of loan.

      In Canada H&R Block (any other tax companies) offer to 'discount' your refund. Basically they give you a money order for the an amount equal to 85% of your refund up to $300 and 95% of the value after that. For instance on a $1000 refund you'd get 0.85*300 + 0.95*700 = $920. The percentages are mandated by law. It is not a loan therefore there is no interest.

      For students its an especially good deal because tax preparation only costs $30 and a discounted return is free. I went this year and spent half an hour following along with the data entry. At the end after signing the papers I got my full refund less $30 on the spot and I also got a coupon for a medium pizza due to some promotion with Domino's pizza.

      In general my opinion on tax preparation is that I know it wouldn't be that hard to do myself but my time is worth more to me than the satisfaction of basic accounting.

    18. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

      In the first quarter of 2005, the national homeownership rate was over 68 percent nation wide. Google it.

      For vanilla 1040EZ filers, there's no real reason to go - unless they totally had no clue about the EIC (which I didn't), or maybe there was some abstraction in the tax law that would work in their favor in a strong way :

      Case in point - doing a little 1099 work, I used my car occasionally on business. Not enough to warrant getting a business car, but enough to warrant keeping track of the mileage and writing off the 37.5c per mile, or whatever. A few years ago I leased a new car in July, drove it about 800 miles round trip on one business trip, other than that I used it for regular life. Simple, .375 x 800 = $300 deduction, ya?

      No. Seems that since my normal job was only a mile away and I only drove the car 1600 miles from July to December including that business trip, half the total miles put on the leased vehicle were business miles and thus I could write off half the total cost of leasing the vehicle, including the $3,000 up front lease fees, $600 in insurance, six months of payments at $300 a month ... $2,700 worth of business expenses (half of $5,400) for that 800 mile business trip. That's a LOT better than the $300 I would have written off for mileage - because they knew about a loophole that I had no clue existed. Given the 33% tax bracket (for 1099, including the extra FICA or whatever) those extra $2,400 came out of, the $300 total I paid them to do my return was a pretty good investment on my part.

      That's just one example - it doesn't take too many $800 increases in the amount I get back on my tax return to justify spending an hour with a professional.

      Just a thought. Walk them through doing their taxes, then let them go to HRB. If they get more back after fees they can let HRB do their taxes. If not, tell Block no thanks and they don't even have to pay - just walk out. That's how I have been doing it and I have walked away with more cash in my pocket ever since I started.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    19. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

      No, actually I was joking.

      The note in your sig is pretty cool - I actually had a chance to see the Soviet Space Shuttle back in 1993, from a fairly close distance (static display, riding piggy back on the back of a jumbo jet, as I recall.) I didn't fully appreciate what I was seeing, but given that I got my hands on a MiG31 (ok, I touched it with one hand) and a MiG29, saw the Hind and Hokum fly, and had a few minutes to stare into the ginormous engines of a MiG25 ... I was working on sensory overload so I can probably be forgiven.

      I think I still have a picture around here somewhere. It was September 1993, as I recall, and there was a bit of a coup in the air.
      I only wish I had played a bigger part, and had taken more pictures. No joke.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    20. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by hazem · · Score: 1

      What's even better is to do a little budgeting and figure out what your tax bill will be next year. Then, figure out what your witholding should be so that you end up breaking even, or paying just a little.

      That way, you have your money all year long, instead of waiting for a refund - or paying money to get an e-file, or even worse, paying fees for a refund loan. You can do your taxes at your leisure and pay the small amount you owe whenever you feel like it.

      Why let the government have your money any longer than they should? They don't pay interest on it. Everyone likes to respond, "Well, I really like getting a big refund check". Still, why are you letting the government be your savings account - that pays no interest?

      Most people with a steady job can pretty easily calculate what their taxes will be next year. Hell, you can practically use the same numbers. Take your "tax due", and divide by your number of pay periods. Ask your payroll to only take that number out. That might mean setting a higher number of deductions, and then having them hold out an extra amount. For example, I'm single, and I have 4 exemptions on my W4. I also have them take out another $80 per paycheck, and it all balances out.

    21. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Buran · · Score: 1

      Pretty impressive stuff. The An-225 is the world's biggest aircraft, I think. It's even bigger than the C-5 Galaxy.

    22. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by hazem · · Score: 1

      You're right. You need to be able to follow instructions, and ask help when you don't understand. Doing one's own taxes requires the dramatic requirement of a high school degree.

      And $9.96 to get H&R's "Taxcut" software from Walmart (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product _id=4347458) if you can't handle the questions and the math. It even does a decent job if you own a house, go to college, adopt a child, etc.

      Yep. I hate the W-4, and the pre-calculator way income taxes are withheld in general. (Why not a flat percentage of gross wages, after a deduction equal to the taxpayer's expected deduction divided bu the number of paychecks?)

      It's not so hard to do on your own. If you have a steady job, you can practically tax this year's "tax due", and divide it by the number of pay periods. Make your W-4 withholding number larger than you need, see what your paycheck looks like, and then have them hold out an extra mount on top of that.

    23. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      You're right. You need to be able to follow instructions, and ask help when you don't understand. Doing one's own taxes requires the dramatic requirement of a high school degree.

      C'mon now, a high school degree doesn't mean anything these days. Have you ever seen what happens at your local fast food place when the computers go down? There are plenty of high school graduates that don't even know how to use a calculator. And just because you *can* read the tax forms doesn't mean it's in your best interest to do so. If you want to be fairly certain you didn't miss anything, we're talking about a lot of reading. I think you're overestimating the skill level of the average high school graduate. And I also think you're underestimating the value of most people's time. A number of my college educated friends gladly pay me $50 to fill out their short forms even though I've offered to look them over for free if they fill them out themselves.

      As for homeowners and business owners -- yes, a whole lot of people own their home. But homeownership isn't even close to 50% nationwide -- more people rent or lease than own, and there's no special deduction for that.

      According to the other poster it's over 50%. I don't know if that's true or not, but more to the point, 30% of taxpayers itemize deductions.

      And most of us who don't own a home have no easy way to start a business large enough for the IRS to care about.

      I really don't know why you'd say that. Anyone with half a brain can start a business quite easily. Might not want to, but it's not a hard thing to do.

      Yep. I hate the W-4, and the pre-calculator way income taxes are withheld in general. (Why not a flat percentage of gross wages, after a deduction equal to the taxpayer's expected deduction divided bu the number of paychecks?)

      Because the income tax system is graduated, not flat. But otherwise, that's basically how it works. The tables are just a simplification. (That said, the actual amount of the allowances isn't set up exactly correctly, in part because the standard deduction doesn't equal the standard exemption. And for people with a more complicated return than one person with earned income, taking the standard deduction, it's pretty much impossible to get it right using a simple formula anyway). All of this said, the purpose of withholding goes beyond just being a way to make it so you don't owe money at the end of the year. The arguably more important purpose is that it puts a lot of the burden of tax collection on the employer instead of on the government. So it's in the government's best interest to err on the side of having the employer collect too much.

      But I also know people who would go to H&R block if I didn't urge them not to--mostly by checking their taxes and showing them how little a refund they're going to get.

      On the flip side, I know people who have tried to do their taxes themselves and have gotten it wrong. I just helped someone fill out an amendment for 2004 because they didn't claim the retirement savings credit. So that's $200 coming to them that they wouldn't have gotten on their own, and the problem wasn't lack of education or inability to deal with numbers, the return was originally filled out by a relative who's a math teacher.

      H&R Block and a lot of the other places usually run a deal in late April and May where they'll check your return for free and help you file an amendment (for a fee) if you missed something. So if you're willing to take advantage of that (or otherwise know someone in the know who will look at your return for you), then maybe it's not so bad if you try to do it yourself.

      Also, for those who aren't afraid of computers or the Internet, TaxAct has free software that'll efile and everything for free. That's what I used this year. Got my refund in less than 2 weeks. Another reason why refund anticipation loans are a horrible deal. Unless you have absolutely horrible credit, there's surely a way you can get a 2 week loan for less money than H&R Block (or any of the others) will charge you.

    24. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by stanmann · · Score: 1

      And thats different from a loan and interest how?

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    25. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      My father would take in boxes of stuff for deductions he was entitled to and they'd still just do a 1040-EZ and tell him he owed the government on top of the ~$5000 they took out of him that year. He started going to a real professional and started getting back ~$4000. H&R block probably hosed him an entire year of wages in tax refunds over the *many* years he was having them do his taxes.

    26. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

      If the An-225 is the monster with like 10 rows of tires under the center of mass, three engines on each side and a tail that looks like a massively wide letter H - yea, I think it was on the back of one of those - and if I recall correctly I saw one of those fly (without the shuttle on the back.) I will have to dig up the photo album, I think I saw it up pretty close too before it flew (the one that flew, w/o the piggy-backed shuttle.)

      It was over a decade ago, so details are pretty fuzzy.
      Unless I wasn't supposed to see these things in 1993, in which case I am making this all up.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    27. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Buran · · Score: 1

      The An-225 was designed to carry Buran around, so I could tell you for sure that that's what you saw even without your description, which confirms it. :)

      By comparison, the US shuttle is carried around by a Boeing 747, which was not originally designed for this purpose (it was designed as a competitor to the C-5 Galaxy and as a passenger hauler, and turned out to be a good shuttle carrier with internal modifications and additional vertical stabilizers added to the tail surfaces). The two SCAs were sourced from airlines that no loger needed them -- the first is from American Airlines (earlier photos of it will even show remnants of the lettering "AMERICAN" on the sides) and the second from JAL.

    28. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I was wrong.

      According to the US Census Bureau, homeownership rate has been no lower than 62% nationwide for the last forty years.

      Which, all told, may still mean that about half of tax-filers can't deduct mortage intrerest, either due to owning their home outright (rare for the lower-income set, unfortunately) or due to being a secondary-wage earner not married to the homeowner. I.e., a kid at home, like the kind of guy sitting down reading /. at 1:00 am Sunday morning... not me, but the guy reading this after I sign off.

    29. Re:Tax Instant Refund Scam; Loan, not Refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Site" is not a verb.

  8. Place the blame where it is due... by physicsphairy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With Congress, the ones who engineered this incomprehensible beast of a code which is volumes long and confusing enough that even a large tax-filing corporation can get caught by it.

    Personally, I don't see how anyone can reasonably expect to avoid becoming a criminal with more laws on the books than can possibly be read in a human lifespan. I am completely unacquainted with 99% of the laws in this country, and for all I know I may have unwittingly violated a fair portion of those.

    The law should be terse enough for Joe Schmoe to learn it all in a high school class or in a few weeks of diligent study. Anything more is just plain unreasonable.

    1. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by layer3switch · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they used to do that in the old days when there were only like 10 things remember, but some people thought that was too much and made like 7 stuffs "not to do" list. But even those were too much for some people, so they started something called "confession" thingy and few people took it literally and do crazy things like fasting and what not.

      Needless to say, that didn't turn out to be such a bright idea.

      --
      "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    2. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      The tax code is that way because the rich and powerful and the corporations have lobbied the congress to make it that way. This way they can game system. Sure once in a while it might bight them but win way more then they lose.

      As for the average joe I will quote a taxi driver from the middle east I once saw on TV. "The govt lets us cheat a little on our taxes so we will look the other way when they cheat us a lot".

      --
      evil is as evil does
    3. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Honestly
      I'm a lead at an Intuit (TurboTax) calllcenter, hence the reason why this is me being a coward.

      And even though some people over estimate the complexity of taxes, they aren't that extreme. For most people, what they enter is not entirely complicated by a significant degree. Hell, most people only need to fill out a 1040EZ, (while yes, I know that a deal of /.ers would need to fill out 1099-DIV, B, R, INTs, etc., though the majority of the population would not need to) as they're living paycheck to paycheck, and you know these people, as well as I do, considering that taking calls from these kinds of people all day does make it seem as through the consume a large portion of the population.

      But to say that people can't understand the sections of tax law that pertains to them is underestimating most of the population. For the TurboTax program, we had one of the longest training periods (launch class admitted) all the projects at the center, though it was only five weeks. During those five weeks we went over a lot of basics, such as: proper search methods, security, etc., but tax law and sparse and in between, taking up much less time that computer related areas. This is however in contrast to the amount of tax knowledge despite their computer related knowledge. Pertaining things such as calculations upon specific forms, through out the program, qualification limits, things of the such.

      Perhaps if I was not in the semi-unique situation of dealing with this every day, I would not be able to guess my opinion, though in the end, my point is: I don't believe tax law is that complicated, and at a quick two minute check at irs.gov you can find out what you're looking for (if you know how to look for it).

      -Brandon

    4. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      while yes, I know that a deal of /.ers would need to fill out 1099-DIV, B, R, INTs, etc., though the majority of the population would not need to

      Unless you are paying diviends or interest, you don't need to fill out a 1099-DIV or 1099-INT - you get those from someone paying you - and they need to go on the 1040 schedule B (if you've got enough of them). 1099-R's come when you are taking a distribution from your retirement fund - and that's a bad idea if you're younger than 60 (unless you like giving the government 10% of that distribution right off the top)

      It doesn't take much to get to the point where the complexity of doing your own taxes is more than one should tackle on one's own.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    5. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this "bight" you speak of?

    6. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With Congress, the ones who engineered this incomprehensible beast of a code which is volumes long and confusing enough that even a large tax-filing corporation can get caught by it.

      Congress has certainly made the problem worse, but the real problem is that taxing income is such a difficult thing to do fairly in the first place. Most individuals and small businesses can use cash-based accounting. For them the law is dead easy if you don't want to take advantage of any special deductions/credits, and more difficult if you do (unnecessarily so, but nothing H&R Block or indeed anyone with a high school education can't handle).

      H&R Block uses accrual basis accounting. Not only is it difficult, it's largely based on interpretation. But if big companies like H&R Block were allowed to use cash-based accounting, the loopholes would be unlimited.

      Personally I think the government should just abolish the income tax altogether. The whole thing wastes billions of dollars of time and effort just to keep records for and calculate, let alone all the time and effort wasted on enforcement.

    7. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by mkettler · · Score: 1

      You are 100% correct, 1099's are generally forms you receive, not fill out.

      That said, I believe the AC was implying that the majority of the population never even gets these forms. At worst, they might have a 1099-int from a savings account.

      So the proposed "majority" has to fill out a 1040ez, with information from one or two w2's and a single 1099-int.

      I don't know how representative that is, but I'd say that it is at least plausible that a lot of US taxpayers have taxes that simple. It would certainly cover an awful lot of non-homeowners (working renters, teens living with parents and working at McDonald's, etc).

      That said, it probably doesn't cover homeowners with mortgages. From what I read, home ownership rates were about 69% in late 2005. But that's counting housing units own vs rent. It's not counting things like tax-paying teens who live in their parent's house.

      Perhaps this isn't a majority of-all-taxpayers case, but a majority of calls for tax-software tech-support. (I know I've never had to call tech support on either TurboTax or TaxCut and I've used them for many years).

      Either way, I do still think this case covers a large quantity (>30%) of the filings the IRS gets. It would be interesting to find out just how many it covers..

      --
      -Matt
    8. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      I'd buy that. I was sort of saying that he was mixing apples and oranges with his statement.

      I'd also say that it doesn't take much to go from an easy return one year to a difficult one the next. Divorce, buying a house, selling some stock, having a kid - all of those things add to the complexity of the return.

      And if you do a little side business for yourself after hours, watch out :)

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    9. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by hazem · · Score: 1

      1099-R's come when you are taking a distribution from your retirement fund - and that's a bad idea if you're younger than 60 (unless you like giving the government 10% of that distribution right off the top).

      That's not always the case. There are various reasons you can take money out of a 401k/403B that don't incurr penalties, even if you are younger than 60. For example, I pulled out some money to help keep me in school full-time. You still have to treat it as regular income. In my case, I didn't pay any fees/penalties because I was going to school full-time. Even better, even treating it as regular income left me with no taxable income (after standard deductions), so I paid no tax on it at all.

      It's paid off as well, since my new salary is quite a bit higher than my old salary, already making up for the money I would have made by leaving the money in place.

      There are other reasons, besides eduction, that you are allowed to take out retirement before retirement as well.

    10. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      But they're few and far between. If possible, it's best to leave any money in a retirement fund until you need it.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    11. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Since the government must impose a tax in order to fund their operations, they must establish some other tax in lieu of the income tax, and the tax they establish must bring in sufficient revenue to avoid widening already large deficits.

      What would you have them do?

    12. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by timothy · · Score: 1

      I dunno about the grandparent post, but *I* would have them ...

      - spend less, spend less, spend less, and
      - use sales taxes *rather than* income taxes, or
      - at least vastly simplify the tax structure.
      - make the tax form a place to specify mandatory taxable income, Yes (until the amendment is repealed ;)) but also a place to register preferences. Even though I always check No, because I think public-funded political campaigns are bad on every level I can think of, that little box asking me if I want to contribute to the matching funds program is my favorite part of the form. Why not also ask me if I want to support NASA, the NEA, the giant Agriculture Department bureaucracy, and quite a few other things? I might be a softie for NASA and certain others, but I don't like them being imposed on me.

      I can hear two big objections lurching toward me:

      1) "But we *vote* to make choices! We live in a Republic, not a pure democracy! Our elected officials like the NEA (et al), and this here social contract says that you have to pretend to like it, too, or else all of society devolves / state of nature / red in tooth and claw / anarchy / death."

      To this, I say "Balderdash!" Sure, it's a Republic, and I'm glad. But the ballot box is only one of many ways that Democracy lets people's opinions be heard: that's why people write their Congressman, establish campaigns of persuasion, etc. And direct voting with dollars sounds like a good way to me for people to check arrogant government. Not perfect -- just good.

      2) "If people could just willy nilly *choose* to pay or not pay for things, no one would pay, and the government would collapse."

      I suppose there's that risk. But a) I'm actually for the moment only shouting for voluntariness for the programs that do not immediately preserve the safety / security (including financial) of the country and b) again, that problem of governmental arrogance. Technically, our government (in the U.S., but in any self-declared democracy) *is* us; seen that way, any move to cut taxes, or to minimize their impact for an individual, can be construed as "greed" and "anti-social." However, since the government in reality has its own agenda (or rather a whole passel of them -- "the gub'mint" is only a convenient abstraction for a mind-boggling collection of agencies, sub-agencies, departments and other divisions, and each of *those* has its own agendas and sub-agendas, too), and does not in reality act as a finely tuned detector of the Will of the People, I think reducing the scope of the items that the State can *demand* we pay is a good move. If no one wants to fund through their taxes the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (or is it now for "Public Media"? Too lazy to check right now), I'm OK with that. If the reality is that most people *don't* want to pay for it, the flip side of the argument looks worse to me than the A-side ever looks good. "You don't like this, so I'm taking away your choice to reject it" should be reserved for the really important items, not just in the realm of taxation but in life generally. Coercion is bad.

      My main complaints about Federal taxes are not just generalized griping that taxes are imposed in the first place (though I have objections to their magnitude), but rather a) that the system for calculating them is far too complex, and b) that much of the spending is badly aimed.

      I would be willing to pay somewhat higher taxes than I do right now (though I surely would not prefer to), if I could get in exchange a system of taxation I considered fairer in its construction and administration. I am not sure (having gotten behind on my recreational reading on taxes) where this number comes from, but I've heard certain flat-taxers toss around the figure 17% as being a appropriate value -- I'm guessing (but it's not important right now) that this is according to certain calculations a good value for getting approximately the same revenue as the graduated income tax does now.

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    13. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      - use sales taxes *rather than* income taxes

      Hah! Good luck. Sales taxes aren't progressive. You can't sell a tax to the public unless it punishes the rich.

    14. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      The tax code is that way because the rich and powerful and the corporations have lobbied the congress to make it that way. This way they can game system.

      Sure, rich, powerful corporations want to game the individual income tax system...

      The real reason the tax code got the way it is, is because we have a congress made up of lots of people, and some of them want to use taxes to influence behavior, others want to use taxes to redistribute wealth, and yet others want to be able to point to a narrowly focused tax credit and tell their constituants they got it for them.

    15. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      They can be "progressive", if you add in an offset matched to the poverty level, like the FairTax system would. The basic idea is that any taxes on purchases up to the poverty level are refunded, regardless of total spending. That way, if your spending is less than the poverty level, you get a (small) refund; if it's at the poverty level, you pay no net sales taxes. Otherwise, if your spending is above the poverty level, you pay a tax on the difference (not the total amount). The amount of tax paid asymptotically approaches the flat tax level as total spending increases. Also, a sales tax, unlike an income tax, would tend to encourage those with the means to do so to invest their untaxed income in capital (thus increasing production and lowering prices throughout the economy) rather than spend it on taxed consumables.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    16. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      They can be "progressive", if you add in an offset matched to the poverty level

      That doesn't work, because you can't force rich people to spend all their money.

    17. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by Darby · · Score: 1

      You can't sell a tax to the public unless it punishes the rich.

      You misspelled "unless it expects those who receive the most benefit from our society to pay the most for those benefits.

    18. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      There seems to be a logical disconnect somewhere in your comment. What are you trying to say?

      If I assume that you're saying that 'punish' was the wrong word, to that I would say that a tax doesn't need to be progressive to cause the rich to pay more than those who aren't rich.

      Or should I say that you misspelled "pay disproportionatly more for those benefits"?

    19. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to?

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    20. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't.

      Under your scheme, you're hardly making the rich pay more if you don't though.

    21. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      needless to say, your comment didn't turn out to be such a great idea.

    22. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      I think we're on the same side here. I also dislike systems that tax "the rich" more than others, at least as far as above-poverty spending is concerned. However, I do think that the proposed system would result in a so-called "progressive" tax schedule, where those with greater expenditures (and thus greater income) pay a (reasonably) greater portion of the tax, both as a dollar amount and as a fraction of their total expenditures. Of course, they may choose not to spend in proportion to their income (although their expenditures will still, no doubt, be higher than average). Such behavior must result in either greater investment in the economy (with benefits that simple taxation could not achieve), or increased savings, which must eventually lead to either consumable expenditures (and thus taxation) or further investment. This would appear to be a win-win situation, since all income must eventually lead to either taxed consumable expenditures, or investments in the economy.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    23. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      I think your system would work fine. I just don't think you could sell it to voters.

    24. Re:Place the blame where it is due... by Darby · · Score: 1

      Or should I say that you misspelled "pay disproportionatly more for those benefits"?

      I was saying the opposite, in fact.
      Somebody who has never worked a day in their life, who spent all their welfare on crack and had 18 kids while doing it has still received *far* less benefit from our society than Bill Gates for example.

      That's simple to see. Simply declare that for one week, no societal protections of any sort whatsoever will apply to either of them.

      Lets see who loses the most and who ends up dead first.

      This ignores the tremendous benefits BG received from our tax dollars for education (all those "knowledge workers") and direct income from our taxes due to government purchases.

      I'm not saying that a "progressive tax" is the end all be all. Just that pretending that "punishing the rich" has anything to do with it outside the heads of a few loonies is downright silly.

  9. It's easily done by troll+-1 · · Score: 1

    IIRC, there are 480 US tax forms and 6,000 pages of tax law containing 75 million words.

    1. Re:It's easily done by SenFo · · Score: 1

      "IIRC, there are 480 US tax forms and 6,000 pages of tax law containing 75 million words."

      That might be; but, how many of them do most companies actually use? No doubt companies make similar (if not worse) mistakes every year. However, we'd usually expect more of a company who's business is to understand the tax laws to generate reliable and accurate documentation for those of us who don't understand (or want to understand) how to do our own taxes. If they can't even get their own taxes right, why should we trust them to do ours?

      On that note, I actually do my own taxes. I wouldn't, however, turn away from H&R Block just because of a little mix up; but, I totally understand why others would feel differently.

      I'm running on only a few hours of sleep so I hope that made sense ;-).

    2. Re:It's easily done by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      12,500 words per page, huh. Methinks you exaggerate a little.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
  10. They must have used TaxCut State by abbamouse · · Score: 1

    After a few years of TurboTax, I went with the cheaper TaxCut this year, paying for both Federal and State programs. The Federal is OK if a bit sparse with explanations. The State is just awful, even by the low standards of state income tax software.

    When I told it I was a part-year resident (awfully common for young people who move a lot) it simply told me to hunt down (on my own) and fill out a series of Ohio tax forms and then feed it the results after I'd done practically all of the work manually! The State program turned out to be little more than a glorified word processor this year.

    So...who wants to bet that H&R Block wouldn't use its own software to calculate 2+2, much less state taxes?

    --
    Make cheese not war 8:)
  11. So what? by TheOriginalRevdoc · · Score: 1

    H&R Block do people's personal taxes. I think you can probably trust them with that task, most of the time.

    Company taxes are a whole different thing. The rules are different, are more complex, and change often. In many instances, the rules are somewhat rubbery, but what you can get away with will come down to how good your lawyers are. Also, while H&R Block staff do the taxes of hundreds of thousand of people every year, their accountants only do the company taxes once a year. Mistakes are likelier.

    So there's no "irony" here, nor is there any "comeuppance". It's just a common bookkeeping error.

    1. Re:So what? by pintomp3 · · Score: 1

      ummm, the bookkeeping error is the irony. it's kind of like if ADT's offices got broken into. they goofed on the exact service they provide. i agree that no one is immune from error, but this is indeed ironic.

    2. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      H & R block's main (only?) service is personal taxation. Corporate taxation is a whole different beast.

      And if you're relying on your internal accountants, clerks and auditors to get the numbers right every time, you're dreaming.

      H & R block brings in the real pros to attest, within reason, to the absense of material misstatements - accounting firms that do legally recognized audits.

      The more you know.

    3. Re:So what? by bigdavesmith · · Score: 1

      I am currently providing IT services for an income tax department on the city level. H&R Block is a joke in our office. They error so frequently, or completely don't file the local component, that it is flat out comical. While I agree that there is a large difference between the company's taxes, and the tax service they provide, I can't say I'm shocked that an error like this would happen with them considering the quality control I see at this end of things.

    4. Re:So what? by SoulRider · · Score: 1

      H&R Block do people's personal taxes. I think you can probably trust them with that task, most of the time.

      Actually no, maybe there is just have a bad office in my town. But last year and this year everyone I know who initially went to H&R block had to go somewhere else because H&R messed up their taxes so badly. IMO H&R block has lost all of their credibility and shouldnt be trusted to do even a 1040EZ.

    5. Re:So what? by woolio · · Score: 1

      So there's no "irony" here, nor is there any "comeuppance". It's just a common bookkeeping error.

      True... But is funny how people react differently when a software company makes a common programming error.

    6. Re:So what? by ACMENEWSLLC · · Score: 1

      >>So there's no "irony" here, nor is there any "comeuppance". It's just a common bookkeeping error.

      Yup. Completely agree. It took me over 1 year to write the bulk of our code to handle ONE area of fueltax. You have IFTA, with NY and others which have very nasty road tax laws. You have Tractor fuel tax, but also non-tractor fuel which the Feds give you back .22c per each gallon purchased. They loan it for a month and pay no interest. And then the states which refund back different amount, and are loaned out for much longer.

      Then you have different rules for highway use than for toll or in town use. The list goes on. It takes a hell of a lot of work to do company tax. We have to pay tens of thousands a year just to do our fuel tax alone. Of course, we are talking about millions of dollars in taxes and much more if we calculate it wrong and get audited.

      It's job security. You make a mistake once in a while being human. You correct for it. Humans do this every day.

  12. Tax simplification by typical · · Score: 1

    Of course, it can't be as simple as just simplying the tax laws -- every industry has their own favorite exemption or quirk that they've been lobbying for -- but boy, would it be nice if the tax laws were uber-simple. Something like "plug in total assets and total change in assets since last year, and find tax".

    A friend pointed out today that if the typical American worker wastes a single day on taxes, that's hundreds of thousands of man-years wasted every year.

    --
    Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    1. Re:Tax simplification by maxcray · · Score: 1

      > Of course, it can't be as simple as just simplying the tax laws Why not? My preference would be to repeal the 16th Amendment and replace it with nothing. Short of that this is the next best thing: http://www.fairtax.org/

    2. Re:Tax simplification by wol · · Score: 1

      Undefined term "total assets"
      How much is your car worth today?
      How much is your pc worth today?
      How much is that bright idea that you just came up with, but haven't checked with the patent office today?

      Et cetera.

      --
      If you think deeply enough, you will have no single direction for your outrage.
    3. Re:Tax simplification by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Something like "plug in total assets and total change in assets since last year, and find tax".

      ...which probably wouldn't have helped out H&R Block at all, because they miscalculated their liabilities (which I assume you're going to have to subtract from assets anyway).

      Congress could certainly simplify the tax code in a few ways (get rid of the credits and some of the more esoteric deductions, move the rest "above the line", eliminate the phaseouts, and then probably raise the standard deduction and/or exemption to compensate). But a lot, probably the majority, of the tax code is fairly necessary if you're going to have a meaningful taxation of income.

      Your suggestion is comparatively simple (somewhat), but (even adjusted to make sense) it probably wouldn't be considered very fair. If Bill Gates makes $1 billion and spends all of it, he'd pay no tax under that system, while anyone saving money for the future, no matter how little they actually made, would. So then you have to decide what types of spending are deductible, and what isn't.

      Simplifying the tax code without opening up loopholes or other unintended consequences is difficult. Doing so while pleasing your constituents is nearly impossible.

    4. Re:Tax simplification by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      My preference would be to repeal the 16th Amendment and replace it with nothing.

      Mine too.

      Short of that this is the next best thing: http://www.fairtax.org/

      I've thought and read a lot about the "Fair Tax" proposal, and I suspect it'd wind up being almost as complicated as the income tax system.

    5. Re:Tax simplification by BetaRelease · · Score: 1

      It is ridiculous that a lot of people have to pay someone to do their taxes, i.e. here they are ready to pay the government but the tax code makes it so difficult that they "have to pay to pay".

      And don't get me started about AMT (alternative minimum tax)

  13. they impacted the company's ability to.. eh? by ezzzD55J · · Score: 1

    That's a roundabout way of saying "couldn't"

  14. Next time they'll learn by MrNougat · · Score: 1

    They should have bought TurboTax.

    --
    Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
  15. I heard they even went along with themselves to their own IRS hearing -- not as a legal representative, but to explain the tax laws.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  16. Software Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My dad bought a copy of their software (both state and federal professional versions). The federal was OK, but they were extremely slow about releasing some forms we required. The state, at least for CO, was making up random numbers and calculations, as far as we can tell. It would say "Copy box ___ from the federal return", and enter in some random number in the $2,000-range when that box on the federal return was $0. He's currently playing phone tag with their high level support - it's impossible to talk to someone intelligent there.

    The first time he was playing phone tag with them, they left a message on our machine saying basically "Sorry we missed you, since we couldn't get a hold of you we're going to go ahead and close this support ticket."

  17. Re:miscalclaion are liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you mean editors as in slashdot, or proper ones?

  18. Misleading by lagerbottom · · Score: 1
    The OP left some things out of context. FTFA:
    H&R Block said the lawsuit lacks merit.

    So as you can see, H&R block did nothing wrong. Nothing to see here.

    --
    "He was a wise man who invented beer." - Plato
  19. Flat Tax! by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No problem, we could switch over to the Flat Tax very quickly. Take your income, subtract your personal and dependent deductions (well over $40K for a family of four), and pay a percentage of what's left (usually 17% in American proposals). Besides saving $billions in labor, it will likely increase compliance as it will be less worthwhile to dodge it.

    Unfortunately, reformers are split between the Flat Tax and Fair Tax, aka national sales tax. The problem with the Fair Tax plan is that it will require the repeal of the income tax amendment, which will take years under the best circumstances. The Flat Tax requires no constitutional changes. At the very least the Flat Tax could be used as a stopgap measure. Then there's the slight problem of Congress losing the ability to sell tax loopholes to lobbyists (awww). Personally I think wiping out the source of much of the corruption in Washington is a Good Thing.

    Wikipedia Flat Tax.

    1. Re:Flat Tax! by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      Neither of those are a reform, they're a gift to the wealthy disguised as fairness.

      What we really need is a truly progressive income tax, on a sliding scale based on income, with as few holes as possible and a concerted effort to plug any that pop up.

      I'd say a sliding scale from 0% to 95% would be about right. A person making less than $15k/yr would pay 0%, bill gates would pay 95%, and everybody else would pay somewhere in between.

      That would be a truly fair system.

    2. Re:Flat Tax! by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      No problem, we could switch over to the Flat Tax very quickly. Take your income, subtract your personal and dependent deductions (well over $40K for a family of four), and pay a percentage of what's left (usually 17% in American proposals). Besides saving $billions in labor, it will likely increase compliance as it will be less worthwhile to dodge it.

      A graduated tax is not really any more complicated than a flat tax. OK, you need to make 3 calculations instead of one (or use a table), but that's really not a big deal. You still have to define "income", which I suppose you'll define as equivalent to what is currently called "gross income". Now to be fair you should probably move some of the itemized deductions up into the gross income calculation - after all it's not fair to tax people when they make capital gains on (for instance) their house unless you give them a deduction for all that interest they paid on it. Of course, maybe you just want to define "income" as "earned income". I dunno, you tell me.

      So you get rid of most of the deductions and replace them with a (presumably bigger) standard deduction. And then you get rid of all the tax credits. In effect you replace the income tax with the AMT.

      The thing is, you haven't really simplified all that much. You still have all the rules about depreciation and amortization and imputed wages and barter income and loan tracing. You still have to put large companies on the accrual system so that they can't abuse the system by delaying cash payments. Of the 8000 sections of the tax code you've eliminated maybe 200. Of the case law and regulations you've eliminated an even smaller portion. And on top of all that, you have to phase this in in some way that's fair to people who were already promised some sort of benefits from the old system.

      The flat tax isn't really about simplification. It's about removing the concept of progressive taxation.

      Unfortunately, reformers are split between the Flat Tax and Fair Tax, aka national sales tax. The problem with the Fair Tax plan is that it will require the repeal of the income tax amendment, which will take years under the best circumstances. The Flat Tax requires no constitutional changes.

      Huh? Why does the "Fair Tax" *require* a repeal of the 16th Amendment? The 16th Amendment merely *allows* congress to tax incomes, it doesn't *force* them to do so.

      At the very least the Flat Tax could be used as a stopgap measure. Then there's the slight problem of Congress losing the ability to sell tax loopholes to lobbyists (awww). Personally I think wiping out the source of much of the corruption in Washington is a Good Thing.

      The vast majority of the tax code has absolutely nothing to do with loopholes given to lobbyists. And the progressivity of the tax system is in no way a loophole - it's an explicity design in the tax system. And actually, your implementation of the so called "flat tax" isn't even flat. It has two levels, 0% and 17% (*). A progressive tax could actually be implemented using exactly the same number of calculations. You'd just have to look up the amount to subtract in a table with the same number of entries as the number of tax brackets.

      (*) Which is way too little to be considered equivalent to the current system. The AMT alone has a rate of 26-28%.

    3. Re:Flat Tax! by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

      Actually 17% would work right about perfect as a flat tax, given zero deductions.
      Totally flat tax. Seventeen percent. Starting at the first dollar.

      Yes people go all crazy with deductions for children, married vs single, standard deduction, graduated tax rates, all that jazz - but boil it all down and look at the real taxes you paid (assuming you had a real income, not on the bottom or top 3% of the scale making zero or millions) and I will bet that you paid somewhere in the very tight range of 16% to 18%, averaged across the last three years. You are doing it right, most of us are doing it right, and a hard flat 17% would bring all the fringers (guys making hundreds of thousands yet somehow escaping paying anything substantial) back into the game.

      Not to mention it would make tax prep a total no brainer. No more loopholes, no more free rides, and no more 'book keeping errors / slight of hand' with the accounting.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    4. Re:Flat Tax! by Dante333 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How is that fair? Bill Gates deserves to have more of his income confiscated because... Really I want to know. How is taking more money from someone just because they have it fair? On the flip side, how do you justify giving government benefits to someone who has not contributed? In 2003 the top 5% of income earners paid 54.36% of the income taxes. The top 10% paid 65.84%. The top 50% paid 96.54%. That means the bottom 50% of income earners paid a whopping 3.46% of all income taxes. The only way this would be fair is if you vote's weight was directly proportional to the amount of taxes you paid.

      Your not looking for a fair tax system, your looking for a way to feel good by kicking the rich in the beanbags. Go read The Fair Tax Book by Neal Boortz before you start ripping the Fair Tax as unfair gifts to the wealthy. It's an short (208 Pages) and easy read for small minded people like yourself. And take solace in the fact that Neal will have to pay confiscatory taxes on the money he makes on you.

    5. Re:Flat Tax! by Dante333 · · Score: 1

      Huh? Why does the "Fair Tax" *require* a repeal of the 16th Amendment? The 16th Amendment merely *allows* congress to tax incomes, it doesn't *force* them to do so.

      Cause if you don't your gonna wind up with a Fair Tax AND an income tax. Allowing congress to do something is practically inviting them to do it. Especially if it gets them more money to spend.

    6. Re:Flat Tax! by bnenning · · Score: 1

      Neither of those are a reform, they're a gift to the wealthy disguised as fairness.

      The FairTax is progressive, because of the universal rebate. Most flat tax plans also have a large standard deduction so that those with low incomes pay zero or negative net taxes. And both could get rid of FICA which is the most regressive tax we have.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    7. Re:Flat Tax! by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      It would be more fair.

      You see, the wealthy benefit much more from the protection of government than the poor and middle classes. They should have to pay more. And the top 5% of earners should have to pay MORE than 54.36% of taxes.

      And I'm sorry, the "Fair Tax" concept WOULD be a gift to the weathy. Only a tax on wealth can be fair.

    8. Re:Flat Tax! by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      While I agree that the Social Security tax is insanely regressive, the way to fix it is to merge it into standard income taxes. Let's make it a REAL national retirement plan for the poor and middle class, and use the money from the insanely wealthy to do it.

    9. Re:Flat Tax! by Dante333 · · Score: 1

      You're not looking for a tax system to fund government, your're looking for a way to transfer wealth from those have earned it to those who have not, all in the name of equality of outcome. That is not fair. That is government theft so you can sleep better at night, knowing that everyone life sucks equally.

    10. Re:Flat Tax! by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Actually 17% would work right about perfect as a flat tax, given zero deductions.

      Well, the person I was responding to was talking about a 40K deduction for a family of four. But otherwise, I really don't think those low-income individuals who currently pay no income taxes (other than FICA) could afford to pay a flat 17%.

      Also, just so that we're on the same page, what about capital gains and capital losses? Presumably you are talking about taxing capital gains, and not allowing net capital losses. Because, otherwise, it's really easy to rack up capital losses every year to offset all your income. And if you don't tax capital gains at all, 17% is probably nowhere near enough.

      Yes people go all crazy with deductions for children, married vs single, standard deduction, graduated tax rates, all that jazz - but boil it all down and look at the real taxes you paid (assuming you had a real income, not on the bottom or top 3% of the scale making zero or millions) and I will bet that you paid somewhere in the very tight range of 16% to 18%, averaged across the last three years

      No way. My wife and I paid about 3% this year (*). We're not in poverty, far from it. If I had filed separately I'd have paid nothing. 30% of people who file get a refund of everything they paid in. I'm a tax preparer, and while 17% might be the average, it's not the median. A large majority of my customers pay much less than 17%.

      Not to mention it would make tax prep a total no brainer. No more loopholes, no more free rides, and no more 'book keeping errors / slight of hand' with the accounting.

      Like I said in my other post, the graduation of the taxes isn't what makes it hard to prepare them. You could just as easily have a graduated system with a large standard deduction. Of course, the real complexity in the tax law is defining what is "taxable income" in the first place. If you think you've got a simple definition, I'd love to hear it.

      You are doing it right, most of us are doing it right, and a hard flat 17% would bring all the fringers (guys making hundreds of thousands yet somehow escaping paying anything substantial) back into the game.

      As long as there's an income tax, there will be people who figure out a way to get out of paying it. The current tax code closes thousands of loopholes, and yet people still come up with new ones every day. Drastically simplifying the tax code will make *more* loopholes, not fewer.

      (*) For all these figures, I'm ignoring FICA.

    11. Re:Flat Tax! by quantaman · · Score: 1

      You overlook two things,

      1) Rich people pay more money in taxes because they have more money to pay. You mention
      5% of income earners paid 54.36% of the income taxes
      but this statistic is meaningless since we don't know what % of the wealth these top 5% have (ie 10% of $100 is twice as much as 10% of $50).

      2) Rich people are able to leverage their money to a much greater degree than poorer people. At the lower end of the scale this means things like being able to afford university or maybe just affording a computer and internet connection. At the higher end of the scale this means devoting a significant portion of your wealth to investments instead of spending it on consumable goods (food, gas, rent). This is the real reason you need to charge the rich more taxes, without more taxes to even the playing field the rich will simply get richer and richer regardless of whether or not they're actually good at managing money. In other words if the economy entrusts with several hundred million dollars the government better tax the heck out of you to make sure that either you're really good with all that money and can benefit the economy with it or get it out of your hands and give it to someone who can better aid the economy with it.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    12. Re:Flat Tax! by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      You're not looking for a tax system to fund government, your're looking for a way to transfer wealth from those have earned it to those who have not, all in the name of equality of outcome. That is not fair. That is government theft so you can sleep better at night, knowing that everyone life sucks equally.

      Someone's got to pay for all the stuff the government does, and Bill Gates is far more able to do so than the janitors in his campus. 95% is a disaster waiting to happen, but 40% is doable (he pays no state income tax, by the way).

      As for the socialist accusations, the high earners (the wealthy, really, but that's covered somewhat by property tax) do benefit more from police protection.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    13. Re:Flat Tax! by maxcray · · Score: 1
      Someone's got to pay for all the stuff the government does...

      No, someone does not have to pay for all the stuff government does. The other option is we can not pay for it and have government not do it.

  20. The folly of corporate taxes by Shivetya · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If anything this should give people a clue that the tax system is broken. Not only is it overly complicated it also a fraud perpetuated on the American people. It relies on ignorance and to some extent class warfare to continue in its current form.

    Watch politicians. They will consistenly play up the fact that corporations don't pay their fair share while conviently relying on the fact that any taxes paid by a corporation are paid by its customers. It is this embedded taxaxtion that hides the true amount of tax load that is place on every citizen of the country. The best time to witness the hypocrisy of Congress is when certain corporations report their profit. The Congressmen will make big speeches about how all that money is being "stolen" from the American people and that the profits are obscene whereas the only obscenity is Congress's appetite for OUR money. They love to ignore the profit per share which is the true measure of a corporations profitability all because they know most Americans are ignorant of how the system works.

    The system is made so complex to keep the dirty little secret from being easily identifiable. If the Congress and Administration were truly after true tax reform they would make the system transparent. This can be done in one of two ways. A flat tax or a National Sales Tax (aka The Fair Tax). While neither system is perfect they both offer something that the current system doesn't and that is transparency.

    Besides being overly complex, which results in hundreds of billions from individuals and corporations to stay in compliance, it is chocked full of exceptions for every little group that manages to bend Congresses's ear. They have created a self sustaining system. Groups give money as gifts and reelection money to maintain their status. None of them have the people's intrest in their hearts, not Congress, not the Administration, and certainly not these groups.

    It is a total fraud.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:The folly of corporate taxes by mzwaterski · · Score: 1
      You said: If anything this should give people a clue that the tax system is broken. Not only is it overly complicated it also a fraud perpetuated on the American people. It relies on ignorance and to some extent class warfare to continue in its current form.

      TFS said: admitted it had miscalculated its own state income taxes

      Yet for comment is entirely about Federal Tax Law; something to whcih this story is not even related. It is about the tax laws of the state of California. Furthermore, TFA doesn't even give enough information to determine how HR screwed up.

    2. Re:The folly of corporate taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and the FairTax is the solution.

      I'm a donating member and you should be too.

    3. Re:The folly of corporate taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SO freaking what? That tax money gets spent on you anyway, aside from the pointless, vast military cut. Complain about THAT.

    4. Re:The folly of corporate taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh oh.. looks like we have a piss-down i mean trickle-down economist here.

      p.s. what does a flat tax for personal income tax help with corporate taxes? what ideological idiocy.

    5. Re:The folly of corporate taxes by willpall · · Score: 1
      SO freaking what? That tax money gets spent on you anyway, aside from the pointless, vast military cut. Complain about THAT.

      Yup. The way Daddy sees fit.

      --
      Libertarian: label used by embarrassed Republicans, longing to be open about their greed, drug use and porn collections.
    6. Re:The folly of corporate taxes by Quill345 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't a National Sales Tax shift the entire burden from the corporation to the customer? Do you think that companies are going to lower their prices? Probably not. They'll blame it on the government, leave prices in place and reap higher, untaxed profits. And the flat tax eliminates the progressive tax structure we have in this country. You know, the one that keeps the poor family from paying much, while the rich family can only buy two helicopters, instead of three. You should more carefully research your comment.

    7. Re:The folly of corporate taxes by Shivetya · · Score: 1

      just a response to an old thread.

      There is no such thing as corporate taxes. They are tax collectors. Where do you think the money comes from that they pay in taxes? The people using their services. So, every thing you buy (Service/goods/etc) has a tax in it that you cannot see. This is nothing about trickle down economics. Trickle down economics would not be a viable solution to many issues if the system wasn't built upon it. The current system is meant to keep people ignorant of just how much tax they truly pay. The only thing that trickles down is your tax burden. No corporation is paying taxes, you are paying taxes through them.

      --
      * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  21. Refund Anticipation Loans by AngryNick · · Score: 1
    Individual tax preparation has become a commodity and a very competitive industry. Anyone with a computer and $200 worth of software can prepare taxes...especially the 1040-EZ that many low income people file. Since they can't make much on the preparation, Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs) have become a major source of revenue and growth for many tax preparers...not just the big names like HRB and Jackson.

    With the help of large banking institutions like BankOne, mom and pop accounting businesses can offer RALs and other financial products as an added service to their tax prep customers. In the wrong hands this can become part of the shady underbelly of the tax world and ranks up there with your local check cashing institution, rent-to-own store, and pawn shop (sometimes all at the same address).

    Many of these programs are targeted at people who live paycheck-to-paycheck and don't have the education or experience to discern a good deal from a really bad one.

    As nerds, geeks, and know-it-alls, I think we can help the situation by offering assistance to those in need. Help someone in need set up a bank account, do their own 1040-EZ, and understand that a properly file refund can usually be direct deposited in less than a month. The IRS and others sponsor programs to help connect smart people like you to those who need help doing their taxes.

    1. Re:Refund Anticipation Loans by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      Why the hell would I want to help stupid people get more money, given that I don't plan to scam it away from them myself?

      Every refund application that fails completely is one less bit of tax I have to pay (in theory).

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    2. Re:Refund Anticipation Loans by Reignking · · Score: 1

      If you're spending $200 on $50 software (or free, if your AGI is less than 50k) then I don't want fiscal advice from you!

      --
      One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    3. Re:Refund Anticipation Loans by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      Well, it would be a popular choice for libertarians, or other anti-government types. It would force Congress to try and raise taxes, making people angry, and maybe getting some incumbents tossed out of office. Or just maybe, some of the waste might get cut.

    4. Re:Refund Anticipation Loans by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      If you're spending $200 on $50 software (or free, if your AGI is less than 50k) then I don't want fiscal advice from you!

      I believe he was referring to preparer software after re-reading what he wrote. What he's saying is that any Yahoo can pay $200 for software and prepare a bunch of people's 1040-EZs.

    5. Re:Refund Anticipation Loans by AngryNick · · Score: 1
      If you're spending $200 on $50 software...

      I'm sorry. I've developed tax software for the last 15 years and I guess I assumed that you would understand that there is a difference between the $39.95 tax software you buy at Staples and the software a small firm might use to process 500 or more returns per day. If you still think the free stuff is good enough, then just for fun, go figure the tax on a wash sale or calculate depreciation on all your office equipment using the MACRS/MQC method (assuming you've properly accounted for Section 179).

      Once again, it's not smart people like yourself that need help. It's the old lady who was just widowed and has no idea what to do with a 1099 when it arrives in the mail. Many of these people just don't file and incur huge penalties; others file, but get ripped off in the process.

  22. "Editor"... Didn't that used to mean something? by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

    The miscalculation on its state income taxes are liable by $32 million.

    Ummm, guys, that is NOT how the English language works.

    --
    kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    1. Re:"Editor"... Didn't that used to mean something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See up there where it says "Zonk"? That explains it all. Zonk's not an editor, s/h/it's a fucking idiot.

  23. H&R Block is screwing franchises by GrEp · · Score: 1

    I have a friend who owns an H&R block franchise, and they have been screwing them. Instead of giving the employees a browser based tax app, they instist on installing local copys of their crappy software each year. It is buggy as hell, and the user interface blows (IMHO).

    Also, they are now insisting that they set up theese dinky Wal-Mart kiosks. Yes, they might get extra revenues, but franchise holders who already are running at full capacity are forced to take on more than they can handle.

    H&R block needs to get its act together and:

    (1) Create a browser based application that has been thouroughly tested by user interface professionals, not just their tax lawyers and software engineers. This would save franchise holders thousands in IT costs and most of the headache. The only downside I can see is that the IRS will scratch its head and wonder, "Why don't we make a user friendly web based tax form?", and H&R block would have to lobby like hell to keep the IRS from introducing "Socialized government competition into the billion dollar tax preparation market". (cough... bu||sh*t cough...)

    (2)Properly compensate francises for their new Walmart ventures. Right now many have the choice of hiring compenent and very expensive temp management help which really cuts into profits, or go insane commuting between Walmart and the main office.

    --

    bash-2.04$
    bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
    1. Re:H&R Block is screwing franchises by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (1) Create a browser based application that has been thouroughly tested by user interface professional

      Be careful what you wish for.

      Many HRBlock franchises still have flakey dial-up internet connections. Keep in mind--HRBlock covers the ENTIRE country. Imagine sharing one 32K (or lower) dial up connection with an entire office while trying to use this browser-based software you are dreaming of.

      In fact even with a broadband connection any browser-based interface would likely be far worse, far slower, and far less responsive than their current Tax Prep Software (TPS) which everyone will admit, is far from ideal.

      Speaking of browser-based software, is there anybody here who just LOVES their browser-based email software? LOVES the user interface of it?

      Browser-based stuff has its place (I do love being able to check my email from any computer anywhere) but browser based stuff just isn't there in the interface department, and that is entirely apart from the network latency problem that is inherent.

    2. Re:H&R Block is screwing franchises by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (1) Create a browser based application that has been thouroughly tested by user interface professionals, not just their tax lawyers and software engineers.

      Another reply refutes the browser idea by pointing out that network connectivity is not good enough.

      You also need to look at who your users are, and the fact that tax preparation is a seasonal business. In 2005, H&R Block had 11,161 offices with 120,400 seasonal associates - let's call that 100,000 tax preparer users once you subract manager and receptionists. Link: http://www.hrblock.com/presscenter/about/fastFacts .jsp

      You have 100,000 users who will use TPS (Tax Preparation System) intensively as experts for 4 months, then never touch it again for 8 months. You have all levels of users from power computer users to people who only touch a computer when preparing taxes.

      The TPS program was originally written for DOS with DOS function key and data entry conventions (Press Enter to go to the next field). You can still prepare an entire tax return without using the mouse. You can almost do it without removing your hand from the numeric keypad, since 1 = Y and 2 = N. Many questions can be answered Yes or No.

      The user interface folks tell us that expert users should be able to do everything from the keyboard and not have to switch between mouse and keyboard. After all, that's why the Unix command line is superior to the Windows GUI, right ?

      You also don't want to change the interface very much from year to year because your users will have to adjust. While your users are adjusting and trying to figure out how to fill out this year's form, you and they aren't making money. For example, last year TPS required me to enter Y or N for the question "Did the taxpayer pay student loan interest ?" This year, no entry or blank defaults to N. It has taken me 6 weeks to discover that and to stop typing N in that field.

      You get enough tax law changes from year to year requiring the program and user interface to change that you don't need to change the user interface just for fun. I agree that TPS does not look like a modern GUI with bells and whistles, or like a modern browser interface. It shouldn't, given its history and users. Even if you came up with a better interface, how do you train 100,000 people ?

      P.S. I am a tax preparer at H&R Block currently. I was a dinosaur developer, and will be again once I find another job.

      (2)Properly compensate francises for their new Walmart ventures.

      You're probably right that H&R Block is screwing franchisees. They're trying their best to screw their tax preparers.

    3. Re:H&R Block is screwing franchises by GrEp · · Score: 1

      And I thought TPS reports were only from Office Space :)

      --

      bash-2.04$
      bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
    4. Re:H&R Block is screwing franchises by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Create a browser based application that has been thouroughly tested by user interface professionals, not just their tax lawyers and software engineers.

      I've got news for you: UI professionals are software engineers. Only problem is that sometimes they use the wrong software engineer to build the UI.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    5. Re:H&R Block is screwing franchises by mikelieman · · Score: 1

      I see you haven't ever supported a few thousand workstations?

      Browser based apps rule.

      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    6. Re:H&R Block is screwing franchises by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I see you haven't ever supported a few thousand workstations?

      Browser based apps rule.

      Over dialup?

      HRBlock has something like 11,000 offices. I don't know the exact numbers but it would be something like 1000-2000 of those are still on dialup connections . . .

    7. Re:H&R Block is screwing franchises by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I see you haven't ever supported a few thousand workstations?

      Browser based apps rule.

      This is exactly the calculation HRB made in rolling out the "tuner" this year. It was designed to automate the process of downloading/installing software because they made the calculation that individual techs were spending a lot of time installing software on individual computers in 11,000 offices.

      The trouble with this kind of calculation is that there are two ends to it. In this case they saved (relatively) pennies on tech support and lost real money when offices across the company were down because the new software screwed up.

      The same calculation comes into play if they were to roll out browser-based apps for all the preparers to use. Surely they would save on money on techs who now support the software. But . . .

      * Preparers would be tremendously slower the first year because the UI of an online app would of necessity be far different than their current app. Since most preparers (the ones who do most of the returns, anyway) have been with HRB at least a year or two, and have done 100s of returns with the current software, and they have had the brains to keep the UI on that software consistent (as far as possible) over the last many years, current preparers are fast with that UI and would be much slower with anything else.

      So prepare for complete disaster the first year. Keep in mind that HRB's profit depends on doing the maximal # of tax returns within a very short period. So anything that slows preparers down cuts directly into the bottom line.

      * Even once the first year disaster is over, the network latency and sluggish browser response is going to mean that the average return will take, say 5 minutes longer. Say the average return takes 30 minutes (I don't know the actual time, but that's a reasonable guess) and you've just reduced the income from HRB's tax unit by over 15%. Hope you saved a lot on tech support . . .

      * Also add in say 2 or 3 network outages per office per season, which means the entire office is shut down and making no money during that period. Also include in your calculation the possibility that the central server for the app will go down for one reason or another, taking down the entire company (that is essentially what happened to HRB this year, though for a different reason).

      Right now HRB depends on networking both within the office and from office to central computers.

      But if the office-central network goes down the office can still operate independently & just transmit when it is back up.

      And if the office network goes down, workstations can still operate independently & transmit their data to the office server when the network comes back up.

      That is on purpose. Any other way leads to disaster.

      In fact they experimented with running TPS on all office workstations from each office's server. That was indeed a disaster (office server goes down means entire office is down, which means entire office is making $0), so they went back to software installed on individual workstations.

      There is a lot to be said for robustness and a lot to be said for avoiding a single point of failure, especially when you're betting the whole company on it.

  24. H&R Block and it's barely trained monkeys by Lupulack · · Score: 1

    I worked as an accounting technician for a year, did small business accounting and small business and personal tax preparation.

    So when a good friend was operating a small contract fence business I offered to do his books for him for free and to teach him how to have everything in order for the next year. By my calculations he owed about $400 above what his regular Mon-Fri job had already paid in. Unfortunately he felt that going to H&R was safer , so ( secretly , so as not to hurt my feelings ) he went and had his taxes done there.

    Not only did they charge him $200 for the privelege , they screwed up and disallowed all his business deductions, said he owed $1400.

    H&R has little reason to get you every last penny you can , they operate on volume. Besides , that way there is no chance of them being even glanced at by the auditors since they know that they're far too cautious.
    Besides anyone who charges $30 for doing basic income taxes on modern return software is cheating. You enter what , 5 or 6 numbers and click "Print/send" ?

    --
    The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.
    1. Re:H&R Block and it's barely trained monkeys by geobeck · · Score: 1

      I went to H&R Block once. Only once. Half a bloody hour into the session, the ~cough~ 'tax professional' looked at one of my T4's and asked me "What is this 'CUPE union'?"

      For the non-Canadians, CUPE is the Canadian Union of Public Employees, one of the largest unions in the country. It's like an American tax preparer never having heard of the Teamsters or the UAW.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    2. Re:H&R Block and it's barely trained monkeys by kevlar · · Score: 1

      Yes, they operate on volume, but they also charge per form that needs to be filed. They are definately stupid monkeys though. I had a lady telling me that if I had donated $10,000 of my after-tax income to a charity that I would get an extra $7000 from the Federal Govt. What fucking kind of logic is that?? It's one thing if I wanted to donate that much money or if I regularly wiped my ass with $50 bills, but I don't. What a freaking ass clown she was.

      So now I have an accountant. I mail him all my crap, he calls me on the phone (maybe a couple emails) and files it. Yes, he charges $300, but he's savings us thousands.

    3. Re:H&R Block and it's barely trained monkeys by Lupulack · · Score: 1

      For anyone with a small business an accountant is really a necessity. Consider it this way : an accountant hires a tech to fix his computers. It's not worth his time to try to fix it himself, aside from the fact that he doesn't have the recquisite skill and is likely to do damage to it and perhaps lose data.

      And now think that if you screw up your taxes / financial records you not only could lose money but could be looking at an audit and perhaps legal trouble.

      And yeah , a decent accountant will be able to save you far more than he costs. My friend with the fencing business could get rebates back for Gasoline taxes since he spends so much time off gov't roads , that's money that H&R will never recover for him. It's a 5 minute job to fill out the forms but it's something only a competent accountant would know to do.

      --
      The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.
  25. Just a common error? by seanvaandering · · Score: 1

    It's just a common bookkeeping error

    Just tell that to Enron.

    1. Re:Just a common error? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Just tell that to Enron.

      Okay, how do you accidentally create a bunch of shell corporations, sell to them, and call that revenue (or was that another company?)? Woops Cali, sorry about your energy crisis. Bookkeeping error, don'tcha know.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  26. Is it really a mistake? by bigtrouble77 · · Score: 1

    I find it most interesting that virtually all 'honest' accounting mistakes are in favor of the person/company making the mistake. I'm not saying that H&R block had any intention to get away with fraud at some point, but it is an interesting phenominon.

    1. Re:Is it really a mistake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because all the mistakes in favor of congress are ignored.

    2. Re:Is it really a mistake? by GreekPimpSlap · · Score: 0

      do you really think that if a mistake was made in favor of the government that you would hear a peep about it ? i didnt RTFA but im sure the IRS contacted H&R Block about this issue which is how they found out about it. that would be the day when the IRS calls anyone up and says "oops, we made a mistake on your return, we need to send you more money"

  27. Technology problems by HalAtWork · · Score: 1
    'Technology problems across the H&R Block network in early January impacted our ability to serve clients in those crucial early weeks,' said Block Chairman Mark A. Ernst. He said the problems had been corrected, but they impacted the company's ability to serve 250,000 clients at that time of year."

    The term "Technology problems" is very broad... what does this mean? What software are they using?

    1. Re:Technology problems by sjwest · · Score: 0

      Its 'blame the computer' time - there 'professionals', personally speaking ive yet to find a computer that did not admit it was at fault. (humour)

    2. Re:Technology problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The delivery software was screwing things up for them. Poorly designed, even worse implimented (at version 6 mind you), it would crash and take out the entire OS, and a major Java resource hog just to try to do something that RPM & similar (including their own in-house software) has been doing for years.

      Someone high up got paid off by the publishers and the rest of the company got the screwing by having this mandated on them a month before deployment. The rank-and-file were screaming mad about this and are having problems still today.

      So glad my temp contract expired last week - feel sorry for the slobs still chained there!

    3. Re:Technology problems by flug · · Score: 2, Informative

      I apologize for posting AC but as you read below you'll see why . . .

      This is a classical corporate decision making screwup.

      HRB has for the past number of years distributed its tax prep. software* for its offices via CDs. Naturally given the nature of tax prep. software there are numerous updates over the course of the tax season.

      (You realize of course that lots of federal & state tax changes & forms come down through November & December, but even as of Jan 1st of any given year, neither the IRS nor the states have all their tax forms for that year finalized . . . so any tax software must of necessity go through a process of continual updating throughout the tax season. That's just all part of the fun.)

      In past years, HRB office's major software updates were sent out via CD and minor updates sent via network but had to be manually downloaded and applied.

      Of course HRB had various problems with this system over the years--batches of CDs that were bad, local offices that didn't apply updates as they were supposed to. Just the normal very predictable kind of stuff. Plus there is lots of ticky upgrading stuff for local support people to do--going around sticking upgrade CDs in servers at various offices, etc.

      So last summer HRB hatched the idea of rolling out automated download software. From the user's point of view in a local HRB office, this is a black-box bit of software that sits on the machine, automatically pulls the latest update from the HRB central server, and automatically updates all the needed software--not only the tax prep software but all the other necessary stuff like time clock, scheduling, point-of-sale, whatever.

      When I heard about this plan for automated updates through the grapevine last summer I just about choked. And of course immediately predicted disaster. As did everyone else who actually understood the situation.

      The HRB software is big. On the order of a full CD's worth of stuff or more for a major update, of which there are maybe 3 or 4 a year.

      Most company-owned offices in urban areas have always-on broadband connections. So you could see this scheme working there (with good properly tested software, which it turned out this software download "tuner" was not).

      Any network connection, even always-on broadband connections, are by their very nature of variable quality. And remember we're talking here about thousands of offices here in every conceivable part of the country and even overseas.

      So you can imagine the type of problems that might crop up, especially if the autodownload software didn't recover well from errors (which it didn't), give the end user any information about its operation or errors it had encountered (which it didn't), or give the end user any way to recover from errors (which it didn't).

      But lots of offices, e.g. in rural areas or franchises, are on 56K or lower (even MUCH lower--think *remote* rural areas) dial up connections.

      To download a major update via dialup takes something like three days. And that is assuming all goes perfectly, which of course it never does.

      Meanwhile since it is "black box" to the end user (don't want those pesky end users messing around with the innerds of our software!) the local HRB people don't even realize it is stuck 2% through the download and don't have any way to get it unstuck even if they did realize.

      Getting it un-stuck involves calling into headquarters tech support, working your way through a few layers of that, then waiting for somebody from headquarters to remote into your office machine to issue the supersecret command to make the tuner reset itself on the stuck channel.

      Meanwhile this fantabulous new download software was never really put through end-to-end testing. Yes, somebody must have more or less tried it out in a test lab somewhere, but nobody actually sat & tried to spend 3 days downloading a major upgrade over dialup from Oskaloosa to find out what might happen under realistic networ

    4. Re:Technology problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, well thank you for your very informative reply... that certainly makes things clear. I can see why they weren't honest :) I'm not surprised it was this kind of problem, the software industry is extremely competitive and it is difficult to find competant software engineers, but at some level, HRB actually authorized this. I wonder if it was someone trying to cover up their mistakes and it never got the attention of higher ups, or if they really thought this was the best course of action. *sigh* Well thanks again for your reply :)

    5. Re:Technology problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      Just in case anybody with the power to make decisions in HRB or any other software development company cares to grab any lessons from this debacle, let me try to draw a few:

      1. Deployed new mission critical software (the new "tuner" designed to auto-download tax prep software to all HRBlock offices, plus other related software) without proper testing, including end-to-end testing in realistic conditions.

      2. Deployed this new mission critical software company-wide without piloting it first.

      3. #1 & #2 were all the stupider because there was a proven working alternative available. Sometimes you just don't have a choice but in this case they did.

      4. Did #1 and #2 over the loud objections of numerous employees. (It really didn't take a genius to see this train wreck coming.)

      5. Consistently failed to integrate testing & testers into product design & development. Rather they just use testing as a way to catch a few bugs just before software release. (Testers are basically stand-ins for end users, so if you get that end-user perspective throughout software planning & development your end result just might be worth using.)

      6. Similar to game companies often discussed here on slashdot, routinely work IT employees 50, 60, 70 hours per week from, say, October through April. These are of course (mostly) salaried employees who receive no overtime pay. But Henry Ford was right when he said 40 hrs/week is the *most productive* length of work week and in the end, the most profitable for the company.

      HRB save a lot of dough by working all those employees extra hours and not paying them any overtime over the years. But tired employees make mistakes and bad decisions. A few bad decisions this year, plus a lot of mistakes made by exhausted employees, cost the campany W-A-Y more than they have saved over many years by overworking their employees without proper compensation.

      Can I draw a couple of points here?

      A. If some task is so vital to the company that it is worth having someone work 20-30 hours/week extra on, then it is also valuable enough to PAY that employee for those extra hours. And yes, at overtime rates. If it is not valuable enough to pay for then it is unnecessary and conversely, if it is really necessary then it is valuable enough to pay for.

      B. I've seen first hand how tired & demoralized employees get after a few years of this. And how it leads to loss of valuable experience and institutional knowledge as employees jump ship. And how it screws up people's personal AND professional lives. And how it leads to a poorer quality end result for the company. It really is no way to run a company or a society.

      C. Like many software companies do when releasing major software versions, with each yearly software release HRB has routinely driven its entire IT department right to the edge. Each year it seems that disaster is averted, and barely, by more and more people only by working longer and longer hours over a longer and longer span of time.

      But precisely because the IT department as a whole *does* rise to the task, the upper management never catches on to what is going on. "Well, we threw even more at them this yar but everything turned out AOK in the end. So next time we can pile it on even higher!"

      That has, in fact, been the case over the past several years at HRB. Each year they promise the next will be better, but in fact each year for at least the last 5 or 6, it has clearly grown worse in terms of hours of unpaid overtime worked by employees, overall length of the "crunch" period, and employee morale.

      In fact the point management should be drawing from these repeated near-disaster experiences (ie, every year for at least the past 4 years) is, "The whole company was inches from disaster and now the entire IT department is exhausted and demoralized. If we keep going down this path it will inevitably lead serious problems that will affect the entire company."

    6. Re:Technology problems by Rudolf · · Score: 1
      Re:Technology problems
      by flug (589009)

      I apologize for posting AC but as you read below you'll see why . . .


      Whoops!

      The Preview Button if your friend.

      :-)

    7. Re:Technology problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a Field system Technician for 23 H&R Block offices. The "technology problems" are grossly understated. Someone for lack of a better term, screwed the pooch. All but 3-4 of my offices were dial-up at the beginning of the year. I've now only got a few dial-up left. Someone with too much power and too little knowledge implemented a brand new "automated" process that was in theory the greatest thing since sliced bread. It was not tested enough and failed horribly. The tax preperation software (TPS)is custom made software. There were failures at many levels in the technology department. From design and testing down to support and troubleshooting. As a low level tech in the field, I am given just enough information and training to keep crap connecting to World Headquarters. We are still using pentium 450 mhz for gods sake. This year has been a joke.

      "Umm....yeah...I need those TPS reports on my desk by 5"

  28. BIG, BIG, BIG issue by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 1

    Personally, I don't see how anyone can reasonably expect to avoid becoming a criminal with more laws on the books than can possibly be read in a human lifespan. I am completely unacquainted with 99% of the laws in this country, and for all I know I may have unwittingly violated a fair portion of those.

    This is a really BIG picture issue.

    Not some trivial idiotic shit, like do we build a windmill farm on Ted Kennedy's Hyannisport compound, or how do we save the snail darter by driving the Klamath Farmers out of bidness?

    This question of "just what the hell is in our God-damned federal code, anyway?" could in and of itself be the basis for the next civil war.

    And the truth of the matter is that NO ONE KNOWS WHAT'S IN THERE. If you sat down to read all umpteen thousand pages of the federal code from beginning to end, you'd barely be a few hundred pages through it before Congress & the Executive had altered it, and you'd have to start over at the beginning to see what had changed.

    Google Sisyphus and Rock.

    Seriously, this question of the DC elites using umpteen gazillion pages of legalistic nonsense to turn us into their 21st century serfs could very well be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

  29. They goofed on my taxes too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've never felt compelled to post before, but H&R Block screwed up both my return and my father's. We filed at the same session! There was absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about our returns, except that I had an education claim because I was in school at the time. The fact that they screwed up my dad's return probably bothers me the most. Needless to say, we've never used H&R Block again.

    FOAD H&R Block.

  30. No data sharing @ HRBlock by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 1

    I went to HRBlock this year for the second time, but in a different state than last year (US state, not state of mind). I went there because I'd had HRBlock do it last year, and thought they could pull up my previous information. No dice. A national chain company (well, mostly franchises) using all the same software on a network but there's no way to get the information between offices. Unless that changes next year, I will probably not use them again.

  31. I use that "crappy" software by choice... by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    I pay for it and like it. TurboTax was fractionally better, but after they disrespected their customers so badly with the copy protection stuff, I'm done with them.

    Can you recommend a browser-based piece of software that is better? I have to admit I don't exactly explore all options each year, so maybe I'm just missing the better options.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  32. Simplified law by typical · · Score: 1

    Some of law isn't that bad -- it's common sense. I can't rattle off the exact set of laws delineating what constitutes murder, but I know that if I don't kill anyone, I'm probably going to be okay.

    This doesn't apply to some large (and important) chunks of law, like tax law. However, it does help.

    Sometimes, however, there are things that are counterintitive, and in civil law, things are less clear (which affects trademarks, copyright, employment contracts, etc).

    For example, "Suppose V is drowning. D, an Olympic swimmer (and, coincidently, trained in lifeguard techniques), is standing on the side of the pool, and could easily rescue V. However, D hates V and chooses not to do so. Instead, he stands and points, laughing at V, as V dies. Is V legally liable?" And, if V is just an ordinary bystander, he may be an asshole, but he's not a criminal -- what he did is perfectly legal.

    On the other hand, if D yells "I'll get him", then hops in the pool, decides that he doesn't actually want to do so, and then jumps back out, he probably *is* liable.

    This sort of situation will come up where there's no time to refer to a lawbook, so you don't have the excuse of being able to look up anything.

    The worst is when we have laws that are the result of politics. These usually are worthless and add complexity without benefit.

    For example, US criminal code can be found under Title 18.

    Now, some of these are probably necessary. Arson, okay. Assault, okay. Why do we need a "Biological Weapons" section and a "Chemical Weapons" section? Why can't we just have a "Weapons" section? Why do we need a "Criminal Street Gangs" section? Why do we need a "Genocide" section? How about "Partial Birth Abortions"? Why does "Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children" have a completely unrelated "Misleading domain names on the Internet" section beneath it? Why is there a "Terrorism" section -- surely, bombing people is already illegal?

    All of these things pop up because some group decided to lobby for it, it became a hot topic in the media, and we decided to add a "fix".

    Oh, and why do half these laws exploit the Interstate Commerce clause that was never, ever intended to let Congress do anything other than ensure free trade between the states? It's a federal crime to transport someone between states for illegal prostitution (Ch 117, S2421). How about we just let the *state* in which the prostitution is illegal do the charging, mmmkay? To do otherwise is nothing other than a power grab.

    --
    Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
  33. MiB by typical · · Score: 1

    That's what the MebiByte fuckers did with hard drive space, and we all know how much I hate them.

    Uh, no. The *hard drive* manufacturers started using decimal units (which, while obviously unintuitive and irritating and profitable for them, does at least make SI sense).

    Other people who wanted some degree of consistency (and not two different types of "MB"), pushed for the use of "MiB".

    You want to blame someone, blame Seagate, not the IEEE.

    --
    Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    1. Re:MiB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no.

      Thanks for the marker. It lets me know the rest of the post will be something really arrogant and not worth reading.

  34. impacted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, did they have trouble with their third molars?

    "affected," not "impacted." More marketroid-speak...

  35. what's wrong with supporting small business? by Josh+teh+Jenius · · Score: 1

    Howdy friends, Josh here with another pro-small business rant. Why support the "WalMart" of accounting? As a small business owner, I would not dare waste my time attempting my own taxes, my fiance's, or my business's. I'm not stupid, mind you, but lazy. I have no interest in "games" and "cheats"- I just want to be left alone to earn a fair living for myself and my family. I am one of those "young idealists" who believes a man can live well without having to comit crimes against decency against his fellow man. And yeah yeah, man as in "mankind". Like any women come near this site anyway. Anyhow, my local accountant is great. I won't even name her, as she is already satisfied with her current clientelle (and this is still her "busy time"). She charges more than H&R block, but she also does far more: she greets me with a hug, answers my phone calls, and takes the time to explain how "the system works" and what I need to do to protect my stakeholders. McDonalds is tasty, and can't be beat for a $5 pricetag. However, once in a while I am happy to buy a steak. It's you dollar, friends. It's your power. Peace.

    --
    Math is math. Regular expression is regular expression. The tools are there. The future is now.
    1. Re:what's wrong with supporting small business? by kb0hae · · Score: 1

      Nothing is wrong with supporting small (local)business(s). I do so most of the time.
      However, I cannot afford to pay H&R Block's huge prep fees and definetly not the interest on their instant refund loans. For the last few years I have used TaxSlayer's web based tax preperation, and have had no problems. They store my previous returns, so they don't need me to dig for that info myself. (I have it, just have to dig up the printouts). I have never had any problems with their service, and usually get my refunds within 2 weeks. If you pay for them to do your Federal return, they do the State return and submit it for free (in most states). I do not know if their service is for businesses though.

      What this country needs is a REALLY simple tax law. A flat tax (say 7% of income (not profits)) and no loopholes or exceptions for any person or business who has to file. Anyone from the average joe who makes over $15,000 a year up to and beyond Bill Gates/Donald Trump has to file, including all businesses from the local gas station/convenience store (that has more than $15,000 a year income) up to Micro$haft, Oil Companies etc. Why $15,00 a year? In the U.S.A. today, I consider anyone with less yearly income than that to be living below poverty level.

      BTW, the only way to eat at McDonalds for $5.00 is to get a happy meal or a dollar cheeseburger (with fries and drink). Last time my lady and I went to McDonalds our total was $15 and change (2 sandwitches, fries, and a milk shake each). Meanwhile for $7.00 to $9 (per person) I can go to a local resturant and get a steak dinner or the all you can eat buffet. On certain days the buffet includes steak and seafood. It always includes salad bar, desert bar, and drinks(pop, ice tea etc...no alcoholic beverages) I'll take the local resturant any day. I can make healthier choices, and pay about the same price. Also, why have hamburger when you can have steak for the same or a slightly higher price?

      Politically Correct=Mentally Challenged.

    2. Re:what's wrong with supporting small business? by Josh+teh+Jenius · · Score: 1

      I am all for a flat tax, except that they naturally benefit wealthier brackets coming from the current system. I realize this is apples-to-oranges, but I also see why many feel "flat tax" in unfair. I think the government in 2006 has become a useless "pointy hair boss" trying hard to feel important. No where is this more obvious than in current tax codes. But I figure, like Matthew Leskow (sic) says: if someone is going to take advantage of this stupidity, it may as well be us.

      --
      Math is math. Regular expression is regular expression. The tools are there. The future is now.
  36. no mortgage deduction? by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Eliminating the mortgage deduction would severly crimp the housing market. Don't look for that to happen soon.

    If you were to move to something like that, you'd have to phase it in VERY gradually.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  37. They SELL tax software?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Australia, the Australian Tax Office (ATO, similar to the IRS in the USA) GIVES people tax software, for free. It's like an interview; it asks questions, you answer them, then it securely sends your tax return to the ATO over the internet. Easy!

  38. OK, I'll bight ... by timothy · · Score: 1

    AC wrote: "What is this "bight" you speak of?"

    Perhaps this?
    http://www.iland.net/~jbritton/bowlineonabight.htm

    After all, the government may attack us with teeth, but ropes (on necks) are more conventional, at least since the invention of the gallows ...

    However, tax crimes nowadays don't generally involve a sentence of death. (Which, since the bowline on a bight slips easily, might make it the perfect knot for a symbolic hanging ...

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  39. not too surprising, given the quality by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Example of H&R Block customer service:

    Me: The online state tax interview is stuck in an endless loop.

    HRBlock: Please wait for your state product to be available, then choose it, and complete it. Enjoy!

    Me: Um ... it's *available*, I'm using it, but it is stuck in a loop. It asks like three income questions, then goes back to the beginning. There is no way around it.

    HRBlock: Use the jump menu to jump to any part of the interview. Enjoy!

    Me: Is this thing on? It won't let me jump past income, but that's actually good, because I kind of suspect that there's more to income than just Schedule D ...

    HRBlock: Please take this survey and let us know how great our service is ...

  40. I'm not yet old enough ... by timothy · · Score: 1

    ... to yield "progressive" to mine enemies ;)

    However, I'm thinking of a new bumper sticker:

    "Soak the rich -- they expand in water!"

    I'm for taxes (to the extent that I can be for taxes) only to the degree that they're flat. Flat flat flat. No deductions, no loopholes. (However, I've yet to read some of the interesting other ideas out there wrt to variants on flat taxing ...)

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    1. Re:I'm not yet old enough ... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      I'm for flat, but I'm also for a single standard deduction by geography.

      It's wrong to tax the money that people need to survive. So calculate the cost of living in their region, and that is their deduction. All other income is taxed at a flat rate.

    2. Re:I'm not yet old enough ... by Uzuri · · Score: 1

      I'm a day late and a dollar short here... but I really like that idea and thought I'd tell you so.

      --
      I'm a she-slashdotter... but I make up for it by living with my folks.