Open Source Federal Income Tax Software

niiler writes "There is finally a usable US federal income tax program for Linux users who don't wish to file online. TaxGeek is a Mozilla-based US income tax program that includes Form 1040, Schedules A, B, C, C-EZ, D, E, K-1 (1065), SE (Short and Long), W2, Forms 8880, 8853, 8863, 8812, 5695, 4952,3903, 2106, 2106ez, 2441 with access to most other files as PDFs. It is intended to be extensible so that developers can easily add other forms that are needed without affecting the existing file formats and stored data. TaxGeek will also create PDFs of all the supported forms so that you can print them and send them in to the IRS. (PDF creation support requires the installation of Perl PDF::Reuse.) At this point, e-filing is not supported."

Comments

Nice Disclaimer

[dduardo]

ABSOLUTELY NO GUARANTEES ARE OFFERED. If you have a ton of money riding on finding all the right loopholes and getting everything 100% perfect, buy a tax program or use an accountant.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[canuck57]

ABSOLUTELY NO GUARANTEES ARE OFFERED. If you have a ton of money riding on finding all the right loopholes and getting everything 100% perfect, buy a tax program or use an accountant.

Ask your accountant for his guarantee. I don't think it is any different. But the benefit in seeing an accountant is they have memorized the loop holes you can tap into.

But at least with this event, those commercial tax packages better get a Linux version or lose market share. Not everyones tax is complicated enough to need an accountant.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[bfields]

For those of us who still do our taxes by hand, it wouldn't really be any riskier, and might not be any more trouble, just to run through the software once, check it by hand, and send in bug reports.

Not mentioned in the summary: this is free software (under the GPL).

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[swillden]

ABSOLUTELY NO GUARANTEES ARE OFFERED. If you have a ton of money riding on finding all the right loopholes and getting everything 100% perfect, buy a tax program or use an accountant.

Honestly, that's the same guarantee you you get with a commercial tax program or from an accountant. The difference is that the accountant, and to a lesser extent the commercial software, will probably do a better job. Probably. But if you miss out on big deductions you should have taken, or, even worse, if the program or accountant tells you to take some deductions that land you in hot water, it's all on you. Your taxes are your responsibility, period.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[garcia]

For those of us who still do our taxes by hand, it wouldn't really be any riskier, and might not be any more trouble, just to run through the software once, check it by hand, and send in bug reports.

This isn't a troll but a simple question. Why are you still doing your taxes by hand? Isn't it worth the $38 to buy TurboTax or TaxCut and have it whip through your taxes in 25 minutes?

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[insignificant1]

The tax preparer gets his/her OWN line on the tax form that he/she signs. So there IS some accountability. Not sure about TurboTax or whatnot. But if someone prepares your taxes for you, they will be held responsible in some manner by the government, whether or not they want to be held responsible, once they sign on the line. Check out the 1040 form on the IRS.gov website if you want to see for yourself.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[Hollinger]

Well, not really. Web applications are generally cross-platform. Have you tried www.hrblock.com? I've used since 2004. The site works in firefox, it includes e-filing, and paying by check or credit card.

How would a bad linux version translate to a loss of market share when you have web apps that will work just as easily?

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

Isn't it worth the $38 to buy TurboTax or TaxCut

Not if I have to drop that $40 to find out that I'm only getting $100 or so back.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[insignificant1]

"Honestly"? who is being honest? Who hasn't checked the 1040 form recently? The tax preparer gets his/her OWN line on the tax form that he/she signs. So there IS accountability for the preparer, if he/she does things incorrectly. There is no guarantee that you get all the best loopholes (though some DO guarantee this) with an accountant, but the IRS likely has never convicted anyone of paying too much in taxes.

I have posted this comment to other posters who don't know how taxes work (are you still a dependent?). Not sure about TurboTax or whatnot. But if someone prepares your taxes for you, they will be held responsible in some manner by the government, whether or not they want to be held responsible, once they sign on the line. Check out the 1040 form on the IRS.gov website if you want to see for yourself.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[patiodragon]

"This isn't a troll but a simple question. Why are you still doing your taxes by hand?"

Here is another simple answer. I am an independent small businessman. It would take more time to learn a tax program than it does to enter all the data on the form. I still have to figure out how much money I spent on my vehicle, etc., no matter what the method is and my computer doesn't know the values. I don't see a benefit to it all at all.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[ptbarnett]

Honestly, that's the same guarantee you you get with a commercial tax program or from an accountant.

Intuit warrants TurboTax for calculation errors, but that's all. You also can pay extra for a professional to review your return and make recommendations, but as you note, there's no guarantee they will catch everything.

You can also pre-pay for representation if you get audited. I suspect that's a high-profit item for them -- kinda like the extended warranty offered by the big-box electronics stores.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[hawaiian717]

TurboTax fills in that line with "Self-prepared".

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[chaoticgeek]

I'll just have my mom do them, she works at H&R block anyways so I get them done for free each year.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[bfields]

Why are you still doing your taxes by hand? Isn't it worth the $38 to buy TurboTax or TaxCut and have it whip through your taxes in 25 minutes?

• It takes me more than 25 minutes just to dig up all the numbers I need, so I assume you're just counting the time required to work through the forms themselves. I'll admit that takes me longer (maybe over an hour), but it's not necessarily the biggest part.
• I don't have any Windows or OSX machines. I suppose I could borrow one from someone else, but it hasn't seemed worth it.
• Normally I use free software for literally everything. Every now and then I'll have to deal with proprietary stuff at my parents' place or whatever, and I'm reminded of why I don't miss it.

I also don't (yet) have a mortage or kids, I'm not self-employed, etc.--but my taxes get a little complicated each year, and I could see there might come a point when it would be useful to have more help.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[troll -1]

ABSOLUTELY NO GUARANTEES ARE OFFERED. If you have a ton of money riding on finding all the right loopholes and getting everything 100% perfect, buy a tax program or use an accountant.

I think you'll find commercial programs also come with a similar disclaimer, although worded in more convoluted legalese. Usually if there's a bug in the software the fine print prevents you from any recourse against the manufacturer.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Not if I have to drop that $40 to find out that I'm only getting $100 or so back.

I'm not an accountant. But doesn't that still leave you [takes shoes off] 60 bucks better off?

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[larry bagina]

How would you feel if you dropped $40 to find out that you owed $100?

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[Bastard of Subhumani]

I wish all I had to do was walk upstairs.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[thrawn_aj]

Mod parent +1 insightful.

What you want in a tax software package is functionality. However, an equally important thing is liability. If this OSS burps and does something wrong, I doubt the IRS is gonna listen to your "dog-ate-my-homework" kind of excuse. However, if you do use a package from the list of supported software on the IRS website http://www.irs.gov/efile/article/0,,id=118986,00.h tml (chances are, you can find a free one that can e-file for your income level quite easily), at least you're in a position to defend yourself if the thing chokes. If a Linux package is not available at the moment, I'm sure it will be soon. In the meantime though, I would humbly suggest that techies NOT gamble their taxes on this issue :P and seek out a windows machine (wearing a crucifix of course =D). The local library might be a good place. You can always get drunk after and not remember any of it =D.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[SkyDude]

Isn't it worth the $38 to buy TurboTax or TaxCut

Not if I have to drop that $40 to find out that I'm only getting $100 or so back.

but you get to write off the $40 as "Tax prep fees".

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[swillden]

are you still a dependent?

No need to be insulting, especially when you could have answered this question yourself by looking at my profile.

But if someone prepares your taxes for you, they will be held responsible in some manner by the government, whether or not they want to be held responsible, once they sign on the line.

The preparer will be held responsible for fraud he or she commits, yes, but that will not get you, the taxpayer, off the hook. From the IRS web site:

In some situations, the client (taxpayer) may not have knowledge of the false expenses, deductions, exemptions and/or credits shown on their tax returns. However, when the IRS detects the false return, the taxpayer must pay the additional taxes and interest and may be subject to penalties and criminal prosecution.

Other important tidbits from the same page:

• Review your return before you sign it and ask questions on entries you don't understand.
• No matter who prepares your tax return, you (the taxpayer) are ultimately responsible for all of the information on your tax return.

If there is serious fraud on your return, you will pay penalties and may even do jail time, even if a CPA's signature is on the "tax preparer" line.

"Honestly"?

Honestly.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[Linux_ho]

It starts getting more complex when you have a wide variety of investment income sources.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[cheebie]

I can't even understand where someone would need to talk to an accountant unless you've done some pretty fucked up stuff during the year.

My mother-in-law is a tax accountant, and you would not believe some of the weird stuff she has to deal with. People can mess up their finances to an amazing degree. She breathes a sigh of relief when we bring in our forms/receipts and she breezes through the whole thing in 10 minutes.

Oh, and she DOES offer a guarantee. If she messes up your taxes, she paysthe fine. You still have to pay the taxes, but she will cover the penalties.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[dreamchaser]

I like Linux as much as most of Slashdot, but do you *really* think that not having a Linux version of tax software will cause any appreciable loss of market share for the mainstream tax software providers? If you do it's time to take the rose colored glasses off!

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[AvitarX]

I always like to type my CC SS numbers into public access terminals. Especially ones that run windows. It is certainly safer to do that than to trust an open source program.

note: I think both using a public terminal and a brand new software package (closed or open source) is crazy, but between the two choices I would take the software, and in a few years I may use the software, but never a public terminal.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[chaoticgeek]

I don't understand what was so funny... I live with my parents still? I go to college and I don't live off campus yet but I don't understand what is funny about living with your parents though...

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[insignificant1]

My apologies for the apparent personal insult (although I don't find being a dependent to be anything demeaning, just a reason why someone wouldn't know that a tax preparer is held accountable). And apologies for the "Honestly?" comment, which was an unnecessary gibe. And yes, you are correct that the individual is held accountable. That was your point, that nothing alleviates the taxpayer of accountability, so the "NO GUARANTEES" text shouldn't be shocking, and is no different from a CPA or any other tax preparation method (Jack next door, turbotax, etc.). I misinterpreted your post as one of the posts that was saying the CPA has no responsibility for getting your taxes right, just like this software. I apologize for that, too, because that wasn't what you were saying.

I was frustrated that no one was seeming to acknowledge that tax preparers ARE held accountable for what they do; that seems to be a larger issue of trust at play here since, as you pointed out, the tax payer is on the line any way he/she goes.

So since the CPA can go to jail, too, if he/she signs on the line of a fraudulent return, the CPA may have more reason to do a good job than the software, if that is one's perception of the situation. Personally, I've both prepared my own taxes and had others do it, and I would likely use this software because I can assess its accuracy by checking the tax guides (which I do regardless of who prepares my taxes) and I end up writing my own software (a fairly complex set of spreadsheets) when I do my own taxes anyway. This would save me the hassle and the more people who use it, likely the better the quality for everyone, so as far as using a piece of software, this open source package seems to be good to me.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[CrankyFool]

H&R Block "Worry-Free Audit Support." http://www.hrblock.com/popups/pop_wfa_features.htm l

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[daggre]

I think that disclaimer is pretty standard even on the commercial programs I've used. TurboTax might offer some kind of guarantee because they sell so many millions of copies, but I doubt they'd stick their neck out too far on liability. Unfortunately my taxes are too complicated for any of these packages so I have to use an accountant or I get shafted. Every year this around this time I become a big advocate of a national sales tax and we could just let this entire market go away.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[hazem]

Okay, so you write-off $40 against your income. Suppose your marginal tax rate is 30%, you're only saving $12. So, you pay $40 to get $12.

That's the same idiot logic that people use when they decide to take out a home equity loan to get a bigger tax refund. They say, "hey, I'm getting $300 more back on my taxes!", and I say, "Good job, but you had to pay someone else $1000 to get that $300".

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[thrawn_aj]

I always like to type my CC SS numbers into public access terminals. Especially ones that run windows. What, they don't write keyloggers for Linux these days? :P You had an excellent point until the "especially" part. *roll* Although, I find the common misconception that your SS number is secure in the first place highly amusing. Do you realize that you give out your SS number at several places (like your place of employment or a school or university) and when it's stored in their databases, it usually comes with your name, DOB and other personal info. These places lose such valuable information all the time. We had a streak of such incidents reported about a year ago and I'm pretty sure that's still the case. The point is, locking up real tight is simply a waste of time as there are several less competent individuals who possess that information about you and are oblivious to security concerns.

Instead, focusing on monitoring your credit and your accounts on a regular basis is probably a better way to protect your identity. A bit of judgement (such as using those disposable credit card numbers with few-day-expiry when shopping online) and clearing the cache on public terminals should be quite effective. The alternative is ... well jumping at shadows (although I admit some of them might be quite real ;-)). I'm not trying to put anyone down. I just think that there's really not much on an online tax form that constitutes sensitive information (in the manner of numbers, passwords, etc.). Or is there? I'd love some examples =D. You probably have more critical personal information floating out there when you shop at amazon.com from a public terminal.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[hazem]

I've only used the software when they're cheap - like Taxcut for $10. Any more than that, it's easier/cheaper to just do it by hand. I have a spreadsheet that emulates a 1040, and I just plug in my numbers and copy them down on the printed form the IRS already sent me. (In fact, I use this spreadsheet to adjust my withholding throughout the year to try and make my federal and state refunds add up to 0. I was off by $30 this year).

I'd rather do that than spend $40.

If my taxes are so complicated that I think I need fancy software, I'd rather pay an accountant I trust (not HR Block) to do my taxes for me.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[speculatrix]

have you ever read an Microsoft EULA? Let me quote from a bit of one... this is copy/pasted directly. Note the original was all in capitals, but slashdot's lameness filter meant I had to overwrite with lower case (so even /. website think's MS's EULA is lame :-)
disclaimer of warranties. to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, microsoft and its suppliers provide to you the os components, and any (if any) support services related to the os components ("support services") as is and with all faults
... wait, there's more...
hereby disclaim with respect to the os components and support services all warrantes and conditions, whether express, ... merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose etc

at least with linux, the lack of warranty is free :-)

I was going to add a sarcastic comment that Microsoft don't put a tube of KY Jelly in with their products because they don't care how much it hurts when they shaft you, but that would be cheap and crude. ooops.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[Skater]

I used to do it by hand, too, but after I bought my first home I went the software route and have been quite happy. I've got better ways to spend time than worrying about taxes, and getting the refunds in a week or so is well worth the money spent. :) Also, at least one of the online tax preparation websites (a major one) works perfectly under Linux.

Also, if you have an unusual situation, such as moving between states like I did last year, it's MUCH easier to have it handled by the software (or an accountant). A couple years ago I moved from Maryland to Virginia, and I spent many hours figuring out the taxes. Last year I moved back to Maryland, and using the software made it much less frustrating even though the forms hadn't changed.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[stanmann]

Most people are just afraid of numbers and forms, and they are worried they'll put the wrong number in the wrong box.

personally, I do mine on paper around the middle of december(using estimates from my november pay stub) and just use turbotax to autofill the forms and e-file. Rarely turbotax will give me something I didn't think of, or will deny something I thought I was due, but the explanation makes sense and I press. Between my various retirement saving plans(for me and my wife) I've got a near zero tax burden anyway, so its just putting the right numbers in the right boxes.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[stanmann]

because $500 to an accountant is so much like $80 for some software that autofills forms and e-files for you.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[stanmann]

but you get to write off the $40 as "Tax prep fees".

Nope, you only get tax prep fees if they are a certain percentage of your tax burden.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[anthony_dipierro]

Ask your accountant for his guarantee. I don't think it is any different.

I guarantee that the returns I complete are correctly computed based on the information you've provided and will pay any penalties you owe due to any mistakes I've made. And pretty much any paid tax preparer will give that same guarantee. So no, it is different.

Not everyones tax is complicated enough to need an accountant.

True, though the difficulty of the tax is only one factor. Other factors are the knowledge of the taxpayer and the value of the taxpayer's time.

Some people don't need to hire an accountant to figure out their tax. I e-file my own taxes using the free software provided by TaxACT. Then again, I am an accountant.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[anthony_dipierro]

Isn't it worth the $38 to buy TurboTax or TaxCut

Not if I have to drop that $40 to find out that I'm only getting $100 or so back.

Huh? Why should it matter how much you're getting back? There are other reasons to file besides the refund, like not going to jail for failure to file income taxes, for instance.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[SCHecklerX]

www.eztaxreturn.com is good too. In fact, earn me some money and use my code if you use it to file (you'll get a discount too): http://www.eztaxreturn.com/ezcash, use ER1141 as the coupon code.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[anthony_dipierro]

Honestly, that's the same guarantee you you get with a commercial tax program or from an accountant.

I've posted this elsewhere, but I'll repost it here. You're wrong. I personally guarantee that every tax return I complete has been prepared correctly according to the information you've given me, and I will pay for any penalties you incur due to any mistakes I make.

But if you miss out on big deductions you should have taken, or, even worse, if the program or accountant tells you to take some deductions that land you in hot water, it's all on you.

I can't guarantee that you've given me complete and correct information, of course, but I will work with you to try to ensure that you don't miss anything. This is somewhere I think an experienced tax preparer such as myself will perform a much better job than a computer program. Humans are more adaptable than computers.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[r1_97]

Where did you get 25 minutes from? even w/ TTax. It takes the average preparer much longer just to assemble the information.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[swillden]

I personally guarantee that every tax return I complete has been prepared correctly according to the information you've given me, and I will pay for any penalties you incur due to any mistakes I make.

Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, preparers can choose to warranty their work, and some do. My point was that as far as the IRS is concerned, it's the taxpayer who's on the hook for any errors of substance. As I understand it, the preparer is responsible for the arithmetic.

So if you use a good preparer who does warranty his or her work, and if you get the guarantee in writing, then you do have protection as long as the source of the error wasn't in the data that you provided.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[hazem]

Well, I can handle a lot of complication on my own.

If my tax situation is so complicated I can't figure it out, then I'm not going to trust some $40 piece of software to figure it out. At that point, I want someone who is an expert in handling such complications - and someone I can get to know personally. I figure at that point, the $500 will be well spent.

But that will probably be quite some time. Until then, I do it myself. It doesn't take long and it's not that complicated.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[anthony_dipierro]

Yes, preparers can choose to warranty their work, and some do.

Frankly, I don't know any who don't, and I would think this is covered by an implied warranty barring an explicit disclaimer. But I'm not an expert on the UCC, so take that with a heaping tablespoon of salt.

My point was that as far as the IRS is concerned, it's the taxpayer who's on the hook for any errors of substance. As I understand it, the preparer is responsible for the arithmetic.

The taxpayer is responsible for the arithmetic also, as the taxpayer signed the return. However, presumably the tax preparer would be responsible for reimbursing the taxpayer for such a penalty under an implied warranty (but see my note about the UCC above). It's also possible the taxpayers penalties could be abated due to "reasonable cause".

This is all besides the preparer penalties which the IRS can choose to assess directly upon the tax preparer.

I wonder if I should put a circular 230 disclaimer on all of this. Well, just in case: this post was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[anthony_dipierro]

Yes, preparers can choose to warranty their work, and some do.

Oh yeah, and just to be clear, I'm talking about tax preparers, those who actually sign your return. Taxes prepared using tax software is almost always considered "self-prepared", and correspondingly usually comes with no guarantee.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[hazzey]

ABSOLUTELY NO GUARANTEES ARE OFFERED. If you have a ton of money riding on finding all the right loopholes and getting everything 100% perfect, buy a tax program or use an accountant.

Honestly, that's the same guarantee you you get with a commercial tax program or from an accountant.

What about the audit protection that an accountant gives you? Sure finding all of the loopholes is one thing, but having someone protect you when a "loophole" failed or just when you are unlucky is worth it.

What happens when you get audited because of a flaw in on open source program that has no warranty at all? That is when the difference is readily apparent.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[Dan_Bercell]

[quote]But at least with this event, those commercial tax packages better get a Linux version or lose market share. Not everyones tax is complicated enough to need an accountant. [/quote]

Why would you say that? How many software applications have lost major market share by not making a Linux version?

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[LVSlushdat]

Why does everybody keep touting that damned Intuit product that had so many issues a few years ago?? If your confession... err return is relatively simple, Taxact, from 2nd Story Software (www.taxact.com) is fantastic, and guess what? its free.. either online via webbrowser or a download. Whats even more unbelievable is that it includes free e-file.. I've used it for the last 5 years and swear by it.. And no, I don't work for 'em..

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[Chandon Seldon]

I feel somewhat safer typing stuff in to my computer than I do typing stuff into a computer at a public library. The chance of someone having the opportunity to install a keylogger on my computer is much smaller than on the Library workstation.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[Weh]

hmm, well it goes it the name I guess. It's yet another geeky name for some open source/linux app. Linux is never going to conquer the desktop of the majority of people if its apps have geeky names that aren't appealing to non-geeky people.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[swillden]

What about the audit protection that an accountant gives you?

Assuming the accountant offers that. Most do, sure, but you'd better make sure.

What happens when you get audited because of a flaw in on open source program that has no warranty at all? That is when the difference is readily apparent.

Actually, there is no difference at all between the open source program and the commercial programs in that respect. The commercial offerings usually have some degree of audit protection that you can optionally purchase for an additional fee, but that's only if you purchase it, and even then you should look at the details carefully, because it's not as good as you might think it should be.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

There are other reasons to file besides the refund, like not going to jail for failure to file income taxes, for instance.

And doing my taxes to stay out of jail doesn't require giving 40 bucks to Intuit.

Re:Nice Disclaimer

[anthony_dipierro]

I never said it did.

A step in the right direction, I think.

[Tokimasa]

I'm all for open-source software, but not against closed-source. We need more open source programs to compete with closed source programs. Perhaps even government endorsement of this.

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[darthpenguin]

Government support is unlikely, according to this excerpt from the FAQ:
-----
6. Why can't I e-file with this program?

Because of the lack of cooperation of the IRS and the API. When I wrote to the IRS regarding this, I received the following reply:

Thank you for your inquiry.

The government believes that private industry, given its established expertise and experience in the field of electronic tax preparation, has a proven track record in providing the best technology and services available. In addition, the government believes a partnership with private industry will: provide taxpayers with higher quality services by using the existing expertise of the private sector; maximize consumer choice; promote competition within the marketplace; and meet objectives in the least costly manner to taxpayers.

We hope the above information will prove helpful to you.

Sincerely,
The IRS Website Support Team

I suspect that there will either need to be an outcry, or we will need to present this project as a corporation of sorts for cooperation from the IRS. For more info, see the previous FAQ entry.
-----

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[Tokimasa]

This is still new. From what I've heard, the government is starting to embrace open source software. In a few years, I hope things like this become mainstream.

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[TheSkyIsPurple]

I think the existing Tax Code is so complicated and hard to read that it takes seriously dedicated people to sort through it all.
Then you have to have another sort of dedicated folks to convert that into software that an end user can run.

Why not change the documentation standard? Take the Tax Code at its name? It's code damnit.

Rather than document the Tax Code in legal terms, why not document it in some sort of programming language.

It would be just as (un)ambiguous, but will be direrctly functional, so you remove an entire layer of translation.

The tax programmers can develop/maintain/publish the official logic code, and anyone can build a UI they like for it. Whenever the program runs, it should check the code repository for any updates and apply them, etc...

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[Ayal.Rosenthal]

I admire your optimism. However, I don't think that the government will embrace open-source software because the IRS doesn't make any of its own decisions - lobbysits do. For example, the IRS is asking tax lawyers and accountants who create tax shelters and exploit loopholes to take the lead in writing some of its new tax rules. Similarly, the IRS asks companies who generate sales through IRS software to help decide best practices. Open source will likely be better in a couple of years than anything than other products on the market, but the government probably still won't support it. Regards, Ayal Rosenthal

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[Vireo]

The situation is in fact ridiculous. You now have two choices to submit your tax report: by snail mail, which is free. Or electronically, which requires you to buy an accredited program in order to generate the e-forms, thus excluding any open source software.

Given the resources at the disposal of the Government, why couldn't they just build a website similar to the ones online tax programs use for data entry and obvious computations (adding columns, tax brackets, etc.). I don't care if the results are not automatically optimized, but at least, you could *fill* the tax forms online and submit the e-forms without the fees required by proprietary programs. IMHO, that should be a basic IRS service. Of course it would mean a well-rounded one-time investment, but the following years, only minor adjustment would be needed.

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[Chapter80]

But if enough people use it, and enough people submit paper copies of their return, causing enough pain and cost to the IRS, then they will open up an E-File capability for open source.

I have already bought a commercial package. But I will use this one, if for no other reason than to support the effort and to see how accurate it is. Who knows, it might save me a few bucks. And if the return is substantially the same as what the commercial package says, then I will likely print the return and mail it in, just to be one who "votes with my feet" and causes a little bit of pain and cost for that lousy FAQ IRS response.

I don't see what the big deal is with E-file. I mean, I like the idea of saving the government (meaning me, the tax payer) a few bucks, and save a few trees. But really, I don't need the return to be processed instantly, so mail is just as good for me. Am I missing something? I sure don't like to PAY for the right to make them efficient!

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[Thanster]

How about a freedom of information request to release the details/specification of the API?

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[voidptr]

Because that would threaten the business model TurboTax and H&R Block have. Buying enough senators and representatives to lock that market isn't cheap you know.

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[Der Reiseweltmeister]

I think someone was either confused or dangerously lazy. Thet really looks like the form letter response to "why can't I use the IRS website to e-file my taxes?" I don't think they understood the question.

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[RobertLTux]

as it happens if you are the cheap type some e-file sites are not to bad it cost me all of US$60 for

1 fed and state prep
2 fed and state e-file
3 sanity check (not including we pick up the tab if you get audited thing)
4 bounce through account (i had them take my fee out of the return)

and all of this took about 2 weeks

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[CastrTroy]

Why not have someone make a commercial tax software that is open source? There's nothing to stop something from being both open source, and commercial/private sector. Just ask Redhat or Novell. I'm sure there's enough people out there that a $15 program that you download and run would be able to draw a large enough crowd.

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[skeeterbug]

Thank you for your inquiry. The government believes that private industry, given its established expertise and experience in the field of electronic tax preparation, has a proven track record in providing the best technology and services available. In addition, the government believes a partnership with private industry will: provide taxpayers with higher quality services by using the existing expertise of the private sector; maximize consumer choice; promote competition within the marketplace; and meet objectives in the least costly manner to taxpayers. We hope the above information will prove helpful to you. Sincerely, The IRS Website Support Team

translated from bureaucratic speak to plain english... Thank you for your inquiry. The government is paid off by private industry, given its established expertise and experience in the field of minting money from electronic tax preparation. It also has a proven track record in providing the most bang for the congress person buck in terms of campaign contributions, junkets and all sorts of other deals we don't want you to know about (see what happened to Cunningham). In addition, the government believes a partnership with private industry will provide congress persons with higher quality of donation by charging US citizens money to redirect back to us; maximize consumer choice from those companies who bribe us regularly; promote competition within the marketplace in order to ramp up our intake of cash; and meet objectives in the least costly manner to taxpayers given that congress persons need to get paid - and paid well. no freebie tax prep with no source of income to send our way will EVER be approved by the IRS, so go away or we'll tap your phones and send the RIAA and MPAA after you. We hope the above information will prove helpful to you, it sure is helpful to us in terms of getting kickbacks - and that is why we do what we do. Sincerely, The IRS Website Support Team (hey, we don't make the rules, we just don't anger our masters, and the retirement is good) PS - a million dollars in bri... errr, campaign donations will get what you want... otherwise, get lost.

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[tcgroat]

That attitude from the IRS is irritating! The only way to use E-file is to pay one of the commercial outfits, sometimes in addition to their regular fee for tax software or tax preparation services. The the IRS sends nice reminders to "use e-File", which amounts to commercial advertising at public expense. I'll use a couple of stamps to file, not a credit card.

For an example of on-line filing designed for the taxpayer instead of the tax preparation industry, look here. Unlike e-File, this system is easy, fast, and free. If you pay Colorado taxes, there's no reason to pay for state tax software. A decent web browser is all you need!

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[Urza9814]

What address exactly did he use to contact them about this? I figure I might as well voice my opinion as well, but I can't seem to find an appropriate contact location on their website.

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[anthony_dipierro]

I'm going to have to side with the IRS that an open source application is not suited to this environment as there's no accountability on checking of it's data and allowing any random person's code to transmit to the IRS could cause hell into the system.

I don't see a problem with open source software, as long as someone vouches for it and gets it certified, and I also don't see how the IRS could deny an application simply because the software is open source. (*) And the software itself wouldn't interact directly with the IRS. It'd send the information to a transmitter who would then check the information for basic accuracy and then send it off to the IRS.

I think one day we will have open source e-file capable software. Of course, e-filing might not be free, as the transmitter would likely charge a small fee. If I had the time and/or the money (same thing), I'd be interested in making such software. And if someone else makes the software, I'd be willing to put it through the IRS testing.

(*) Back in 2002 or so I actually filed a form 8633 to apply as a software developer and transmitter for my open source QingTax software. I was given the codes and telephone numbers and approved for official testing, but unfortunately I never finished the software. The project has since been deleted from sourceforge. Nowadays I have much less free time.

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[anthony_dipierro]

6. Why can't I e-file with this program?

Because of the lack of cooperation of the IRS and the API.

Huh? If you want to create e-file software, you use the API provided in Publication 1346, you file a form 8633, and pass the IRS Assurance Testing Process. There doesn't appear to be any IRS limitation barring open source software from this exact same process used by proprietary software developers.

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[pongo000]

I would hope, for your financial sake and well-being, that you are at least releasing this software as a corporate entity. The legal liabilities are simply enormous (yes, I know all about the warranty disclaimers in the GPL...they in no way prevent legal action from being taken).

Along the way, if you are releasing the software under the guise of your corporate entity, wouldn't you now be in a better position to negotiate with the IRS for access to the eFile API?

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[The Cisco Kid]

The tricky part is, that the individual(s) running the software would have to do that, unless the developer of this software wants to set up servers and systems for e-filing, which they probably would then have to charge for.

The big PIA, is that an individual cannot automatically electronically communicate their own tax return data directly to the IRS. They must go through an 'efile provider', who may or may not charge them. I'm not talking about the calculations, or the decisions about what forms to file or what numbers to put on them - I'm simply talking about, after you've determine all that (possibly even by hand), simply electronically transmitting the data that would be on the forms directly to some IRS server from your own machine, no third party involved. But only efile 'providers' (who the IRS assumes are going to be filing on behalf of other people, as opposed to just themselves, and so puts all sorts of hoops to jump through to allow you to become one) can do that.

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[The Cisco Kid]

It isnt the software, its that there has to be an "e-file provider" (eg a business entity) that provides the efile service for its "customers". Individual end-user software cannot talk directly to the IRS, only the "provider's" servers can

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[The Cisco Kid]

"transmitter" and theres the rub - the "transmitters" are the same people making the proprietary software, eg, they only let you talk to them using their own software.

That is what needs to get out of the way. The right way would be for the IRS to make available an electronic communcation method that could be used for direct transmission from individuals filing their *own* tax data. They'd need to allow for authentication/identification/access control/etc. And the individuals would be responsible for the accuracy of what they submit, wether they prepare the data by hand in a text editor or use a special-purpose program to do so.

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[anthony_dipierro]

The tricky part is, that the individual(s) running the software would have to do that, unless the developer of this software wants to set up servers and systems for e-filing, which they probably would then have to charge for.

So? Free software refers to freedom, not to price. I'd rather pay a couple bucks a return (that's all it should cost) to e-file software using open source software than e-file for free using proprietary software.

The big PIA, is that an individual cannot automatically electronically communicate their own tax return data directly to the IRS.

I guess, but this doesn't have anything to do with open source. In fact, it makes open source software more likely to be built, since it provides a business model for those who write the software.

Re:A step in the right direction, I think.

[anthony_dipierro]

"transmitter" and theres the rub - the "transmitters" are the same people making the proprietary software, eg, they only let you talk to them using their own software.

Last time I looked (which was admittedly about 5 years ago), that wasn't true. There were transmitters out there who would transmit returns created by third party software.

That is what needs to get out of the way. The right way would be for the IRS to make available an electronic communcation method that could be used for direct transmission from individuals filing their *own* tax data.

It'd be nice, I guess, and the Internet would certainly facilitate the logistics of that. But it's not a particularly big stumbling block - transmission is cheap and easy, you could probably get it down to less than the cost of a stamp.

The hard part is building the software in the first place.

Re:Taxes are for Suckers

[IPFreely]

He's just a little moron.

You get to be the beta tester!

[goombah99]

News from their website page:

2007-03-08 TaxGeek06d, a major release with *numerous* bug fixes, more extensive testing based on the IRS PATS (Participants Acceptance TeSting) test input suite, improvements to the user interface, and more supported forms, has been released. Several additional forms have been introduced as well.

Please every one use this software this year so all the bugs get found and I can use it next year! 03/08 is a bit close to 4/15 for me to be worrying about bugs!

Re:You get to be the beta tester!

[zappepcs]

While I don't want the refund check dependent on a beta, I am going to run both Tax Cut and TaxGeek06d to see how they compare....

Re:You get to be the beta tester!

[Professor_UNIX]

If you're poor enough that you need to use free software to prepare your taxes (up to $52,000 AGI) then you can just use any of the IRS's FreeFile online participant companies. If you make more than that then you need to stop whining and just go buy Turbotax or Taxcut or use one of their online web sites if they don't support your choice of fringe desktop operating systems. Turbotax online should work fine in Mozilla on any platform. If you have State Farm insurance there is even a "free tax filing" link once you login to the State Farm web site get free Online Turbotax Basic or Deluxe or $20 Premier with free electronic filing of federal and state returns.

If neither the Freefile program or Turbotax/Taxcut software or their online versions fit your tax filing needs Mr. Moneybags then you just need to go talk to your private accountant like the rest of the rich people and leave the bottom 95% of us to our drudgery. ;-)

Re:You get to be the beta tester!

[SkyDude]

2007-03-08 TaxGeek06d, a major release with *numerous* bug fixes, more extensive testing based on the IRS PATS (Participants Acceptance TeSting) test input suite, improvements to the user interface, and more supported forms, has been released. Several additional forms have been introduced as well.

TurboTax and Taxcut, the two apps with the largest combined user base, have both had significant "bugs" since their inception. They do provide a mechanism for updates each time the app starts up and these are from established publishers.

While I like open source apps, this is one I'm passing on. I admit, tax stuff makes my eyes glaze over, but the big guys have had a lot of years to get it right and I'd prefer not to be a beta tester where the IRS is involved. That's a battle I'd rather not have to fight.

Re:You get to be the beta tester!

[AvitarX]

It would be great if you were to put a generalization of your results and let us know.

Re:You get to be the beta tester!

[Skater]

Do you have any idea what a refund is?

It means your employer withheld too much of your pay. So your employer and the government got to keep it, gaining interest on it, until you file your taxes and get the check for ONLY the amount they owe you - they keep the interest.

It's best to have no refund, because it means that you got the money when you earned it, not several months later.

Re:You get to be the beta tester!

[hazem]

If you REALLY want a refund, just have your employer withhold more money out of your paychecks.

I always laugh at people who boast with pride about the large refunds they're getting. They just don't get it when I try to tell them that it was always their money all along and they simply let the government have it all year without paying interest. Then there's the people who boast about the tax savings they get from the interest on their 2nd & 3rd mortgages. Try explaining to them that they're losing money because in order to get the 20 or 30% of the interest paid back in a tax refund, they are having to pay 100% in interest to someone else.

Anyway, if you want a refund, have the hold out more.

Of course, if your refunds are being garnished that you're screwed and should have lawyered up better. And if THAT's your problem, then set your withholding low so there is no refund to garnish.

Re:You get to be the beta tester!

[Propaganda13]

No refund is a good idea. Of course, if you're like me then it's a forced annual savings plan. I'm more likely to put my refund towards higher interest debt than the extra little bit each paycheck.

Just because I know what I should do, doesn't mean I do it.

Re:You get to be the beta tester!

[maxume]

You should spit on them after you finish laughing at them.

If someone truly believes that the US economy is going to collapse, the rational strategy is to carry as much debt as they can avoid defaulting on before the crash, and to expend that debt on things that are consumable. That behavior is indistinguishable from believing that it will either be cheaper or easier to pay back the debt than it is at present though, or from not having any concept of whether it is good finance. I guess that is what makes investment fun.

Re:You get to be the beta tester!

[Dzonatas]

>Of course, if your refunds are being garnished that you're screwed and should have lawyered up better. And if THAT's your problem, then set your withholding low so there is no refund to garnish.

Right... but... that doesn't help retrieve EIC or other tax benefits duly owed to us. All that will be taken also. A better lawyer only works for real debt collection from real debts. For things like family law, the innocent have no rights to protect themselves from fake debts the gov creates. A better lawyer already knowns no more blood can be squeezed out of a dry stone.

Re:You get to be the beta tester!

[hazem]

I'm not sure where you get the economy collapsing out of my post.

I'm just saying it's financially illiterate to claim you're saving money on your taxes while to get that savings you have to pay nearly 3 times what you're "saving" in interest to someone else.

Now, it's generally a sound idea use a mortgage to buy a house so you can build equity and have the house appreciate (and also to lock in a fixed payment level for your housing over a long period of time).

But it's a pretty dumb strategy to take out a 2nd mortgage at a higher and probably variable rate to finance your European vacation and and your new jet skis while claiming it's "okay" because you get to write off the interest from your taxes. You're paying 1000 to save 300. You're still net -700. Sure you have your vacation memories and some depreciated jet skis but it's not sound thinking.

The same financial illiteracy leads many to think they're winning some great coup against the government when they get a fat refund check every year. You then try to explain that that money was theirs all along and isn't a gift from the government - and that they've been loaning it to the government for free. Then you suggest they reduce their withholding so they get the money all year long instead of in a huge lump. The typical answer is: "Well, if I do that, I'll spend it all. I like getting a big lump all at once."

The first part of that is an admission of lack of any self control - a much bigger problem, really. They also don't understand that if they reduce their withholding and put the extra cash in a savings account or some other investment that they not only have access to the money all year long, they will get MORE money - and they can STILL get it in a lump sum if they want it - and MORE of it! Or for an even better return they can use the extra to pay down their credit cards. Or even their mortgage... but then they complain that they'll lose some of their mortgage interest deduction.?! Okay... that's true for this year, but they don't seem to understand or care that doing so means they can chop years off their mortgage that way.

I realize it's a systems kind of thing where people get the reward of bad decisions now but due to delays inherent in the system, they don't have to pay the consequences until later. At which point, too much time has passed and they don't truly associate the bad choices in the past with the bad consequences of the future.

So, a simple thing like adjusting your withholding can help quite a bit. I actually take it to the extreme. My salary is pretty much fixed over the course of a year. $1.00 that I earn in January is worth more, due to inflation, than $1.00 in the next December. So, at the beginning of the year, I claim 10 deductions and have virtually no tax money taken out. At the same time, I max out the money going into my 401K. Every couple of months, I adjust the numbers so that more goes into taxes and less goes into the 401K. Over the course of the year, I end up paying the same amount of money into my 401K and Taxes as if I had left them level. BUT, the extra money going into the 401K is earning money for me right away - and for more of the year. There's no penalty (interest paid or interest lost) by pushing the tax payments to the end of the year. I also end up nearly even on my taxes... I paid $70 to federal this year and got back $120 on my state - but money was in my 401K for a longer period of time.

Now if I were willing to accept more risk (of losing my job, mostly), I'd actually balance it so I owed $1000 on each of my taxes. Below that threshold, there is no penalty or interest. So essentially I would get a free loan of that $2000 from the point I accumulate that much tax-due until April 15th the next year.

Anyway, I've resorted to laughing at people who will refinance to have spending money and to "keep" their interest deduction or who prefer to let the government keep huge "lump sums" of money because they seem impossible to educate and get defensive about their poor decisions. Spitting would be going too far.

Re:You get to be the beta tester!

[hazem]

If you can calculate what your EIC and other credits will be then adjust your withholding so that you owe that much.

You can kind of do that with existing tax software. The tax rates me be a bit different next year, but just plug into the software the salary you expect to earn next year. Then just lower the amount withheld on the virtual-W2 until you end up owing $20 or something like that. Figure out what the amount of withheld tax is is spread over all your paychecks and lower your withholding so that you end up paying just enough so your that your EIC and other credits leaves you with a small amount due. If your employer won't let you specify an exact withholding then use your W4 to claim a high number. Get a paycheck and see where that puts you and then amend your W4 so that it you take out "extra" (there's a line for this ) above what they take with your stated exemptions.

THEN, there is no return to garnish.

To do otherwise is to put money into the system that they will just take away. Why do that? Put in less than you will owe, even after your credits, and there will be nothing for them to take at the end of the year. The bonus is that not only are you "keeping" your credits, you're getting them in increments throughout the year.

Re:You get to be the beta tester!

[Dzonatas]

Of course, I agree. However, there are still tax benefits... money owed to you beyond the standard refund rate. It's like the government teases you. "Hey... you get to file for EIC credits, but... we're gonna take that back."

Re:You get to be the beta tester!

[maxume]

(with the spitting, I mostly meant that 'being amused by' sounds better than 'laughing at')

The economic collapse nonsense that I came up with was an attempt to point out that the financially literate thing may well be to take on large amounts of stupid debt and default on it, if you think that the future value of credit is going to be very low(and the non financial consequences will be limited), among other situations. Consuming other peoples money and then not giving it back is perfectly self serving and 'makes sense' if you don't think you will face any consequences.

(I don't disagree with anything you said about people not understanding that they money they get back was theirs to start with and they would have been better off keeping it, but I also think that you either make a great deal of money or are spending a great deal of time working some very small percentages with your 401k/withholding games)

Re:You get to be the beta tester!

[Dzonatas]

I tried something like that. The IRS sent me a letter that stated there was a dup claim... apparently the other parent. However, it appears they can't do anything about it except send a letter and see if somebody tries to correct it because ... no money is actually owed to pay taxes even without the benefits.

However, the main point with the open source taxes is that we wouldn't have to file each year, as it could become much more automated. I mean in sense like Congress voting on what version of the source code to include into law. One could potentially download law code, compile, execute, and do taxes.

Re:You get to be the beta tester!

[hazem]

I don't make a great deal of money, and it is a kind of a game to play with my withholding. But it's a game that makes me a little money, which is nice.

Yeah... laughing is kind of hard. Really.. I feel bad for people who either can't see what they're doing makes no sense or they stick to their guns just to be stubborn.

I can be stubborn too, so I know I'm not the only irrational actor here...

Re:You get to be the beta tester!

[janoc]

I guess that you need to be educated that free has two meanings and not only free as in beer. What if the software doesn't run in his/her computer (e.g. because he is running Linux and not Windows)? Should he buy also Windows *just to file taxes*?

Re:You get to be the beta tester!

[Fastolfe]

The parent post already covered that eventuality by suggesting (twice) the online/web-based variants of these applications. Before responding to someone's post suggesting that they "need to be educated", please make sure you've read the post you're responding to.

Stupid question...

[Anonymous Coward]

but why don't the US use Pay As You Earn, like the UK do? Surely it's easier for everyone, including the taxman?

Re:Stupid question...

[JensenDied]

Oh they do, this is just their way of making sure that you payed enough depending on how much you earned that year, and sometimes they take out to much due to you not making the next tax bracket etc..
Yes, I can vouch for both.

Re:Stupid question...

[istartedi]

I've often wondered that too. I asked a Russian co-worker about it though, and he said his experience with foreign systems that only use a payroll tax, is that they are much more likely to be corrupt. Since there's a lower compliance rate, they have to have a higher tax. I don't really buy into that though. I'd much rather just have the payroll tax and be done with it, as long as I can't be held personally liable for failing to pay it. If it's just a payroll tax, then who is liable though? It can't be the person who runs payroll. Those jobs don't pay very much, and people won't run the risk of personal bankruptcy for failing to carry a decimal. If the corporation or company is liable, then it's much harder to pin blame on a person. The corporation or company just goes bankrupt, so I think my Russian co-worker had a good point.

Historicly, taxes in the US were collected from individuals. I've been told that payroll deductions, called "witholding" here, were an emergency measure adopted because they needed funds during WWII. After the war, witholding continued. Some have actually argued that we get rid of witholding due to its history as a WWII emergency measure. It also feeds into some conspiracy theories regarding the "continual state of war" in the US. Anyway, the US is, in some sense, "pay as you earn", it's just that you have to file to reconcile the difference between what you've paid and what you actually owe.

What you owe can be less due to deductions (e.g., charity, marital status, etc.). Over the years, the US has used the tax code for social engineering. Those deductions are popular, entrenched, and backed by powerful lobbies and interests who have a lot to gain from the tax code as it stands. If I had to give a one-word answer to your question it would be:

Inertia.

Re:Stupid question...

[KillerBob]

AFAIK, they do. It's more a question of people who work multiple jobs (and therefore aren't removing enough tax at the source) and people who are due refunds.

If the tax system is working properly, nobody needs to file their taxes, because the government has the right balance taken off at the source. But that assumes that nobody takes unpaid leave from their work, and that you always work the same number of hours per week. Most people get refunds here in Canada.

Re:Stupid question...

[martyros]

In the US we do pay as we earn (with some exceptions). So at the end of the year, your company sends you a little form that tells you how much you earned and how much they actually payed. Then you figure out how much you should have paid in taxes. If you paid more than you should have, they give you money back (a 'tax return'), or you have to send them money.

The tax system is an easy centralized place for the US to do things like "incentives". Have children? You get an exemption. Lose money from your farm? Donate money? Put money in a retirement account? Doing activity X, Y, or Z that we want to encourage? Take x, y, or z from the money you should have paid us. All of these things reduce the end amount that you "should" have paid.

I don't know how other countries do it, so I can't really contrast it.

Re:Stupid question...

[j79zlr]

You do pay as you go, and then pay more at the end of the year, and pay when you inherit money, and pay when you purchase goods, and pay when your investments appreciate, and pay when die. If you earn enough money in the US & owe significant amounts at the end of the year, you have to pay quarterly estimated taxes as well.

Re:Stupid question...

[ptbarnett]

but why don't the US use Pay As You Earn, like the UK do? Surely it's easier for everyone, including the taxman?

FICA (Social Security and Medicare) taxes are straight payroll taxes, deducted at the source. Those are easy to compute, and only require adjustment at the end of the year if you were an employee at two different jobs and earned enough to exceed the wage limit ($94,200 last year).

There's also withholding for income taxes (both state and federal). But, there are many things that can affect your ultimate tax liability: income from investments, deductions for home mortgage interest, etc. The tax return is really just a final settlement for the tax year, with the taxpayer paying the final amount or getting a refund. Preferably the final amount is small -- if you get a refund, you don't get interest on the extra money that you gave to the government. If you owe a lot, you can potentially get hit with a penalty (subject to a few exclusions that give you a bye for the year).

Re:Stupid question...

[antifoidulus]

No, up until the Civil War taxes for the(previously small) national government were mostly collected from the states. The Civil War put a huge burden on the federal government(and caused it to become much larger) and out of that income taxes were born. It took an amendment to the constitution(16th amendment) many years later while William Howard Taft was president for income taxes to be officially codified in the Constitution

wikipedia link if you want more info.

Re:Stupid question...

[Guy Harris]

but why don't the US use Pay As You Earn, like the UK do? Surely it's easier for everyone, including the taxman?

To quote the Wikipedia article on PAYE:

While not officially called "pay as you earn" the tax systems of both Canada and the USA are similar. Taxes on pay are withheld by an employer and sent directly to the government on the earner's behalf. However, due to various exemptions and deductions which exist in the tax systems of those countries, an employer can only roughly estimate an individual's total tax liability. Taxpayers are required to file an annual tax return to reconcile their total tax due. The difference will result in either a tax refund being issued or a requirement to pay additional tax.

which is pretty much what other responses said (i.e., the tax code is sufficiently complicated by various deductions and exemptions that your employer doesn't know enough to calculate your tax correctly).

Re:Stupid question...

[CastrTroy]

Most people are extremely bad about putting away savings, if they took away withholding, there would be a lot of people unable to pay taxes at the end of the year.

Re:Stupid question...

[Error27]

You do pay taxes as you go, but it's only an estimate based on your marital status and wages. American taxes are complicated so you don't know exactly how much you owe until the end.

Recently, in California, the government just takes the documents from employers and mails out pre-filled forms. Most people can just sign at the bottom and wait for their refund to come back.

John Chiang was the man behind that particular inovation. In the last election, the tax software companies spent over a million dollars fighting him. No good deed goes unpunished. Fortunately he won the election anyway.

Re:Stupid question...

[BenEnglishAtHome]

I'd much rather just have the payroll tax and be done with it, as long as I can't be held personally liable for failing to pay it. If it's just a payroll tax, then who is liable though? It can't be the person who runs payroll.

Yes, the person who runs payroll might be liable.

What you're asking about is how to collect withheld taxes when they become delinquent. Obviously, the business is supposed to pay them timely. If that doesn't happen, the business is contacted and asked to pay; collection action against the business can happen. If the business no longer exists or otherwise cannot/will not pay, then things get interesting.

The withheld portion of your taxes is called the trust fund portion. When it becomes clear that the business won't (in some reasonable time frame or ever) pay the trust fund taxes, they can be written off. However, a penalty will then be assessed against any party responsible for the non-payment of the trust fund in an amount equal to the total trust fund liability. (This "trust fund recovery penalty" used to be called the "100% penalty" because it was equal to 100% of the amount that had been stolen from the employees.) Normally, these are the coprorate officers. (Yes, the trust fund penalty "pierces the corporate veil.") However, ANY person who could have remedied the situation can be held liable. If the person who does payroll knew the taxes were owed and had the ability to write a check, they can be held responsible.

What happens is that the total trust fund recovery penalty is assessed against as many people as possible (usually all the officers plus a few key workers) and then collection action is taken against them. Once the penalty is collected from any one of them, collection action against the others stops. The trust fund recovery penalty is a great way to go after scumbags who start multiple corporations, don't pay their debts, and then try to get away with just shutting down the corp and moving on. The bad part of it is that those same sorts of scumbags will often hire some naive stooge to do the payroll and give that person lots of power (only) on paper, making it look like the business was theirs. Then when scumbag flees, stooge is left holding the bag. I've seen college students who thought they had gotten a lucky break with such a killer good first job saddled with hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax debt.

The moral? Don't be stupid. If you work for someone who neglects to pay payroll (U.S. tax Form 941) taxes, then you work for a thief. Resign immediately. When the IRS comes to call, being able to truthfully say you resigned as soon as (in the same quarter as) you found out about the withholding shenanigans is the only really good (though not perfect) protection against being saddled with huge penalties.

A good year for open source and taxes...

[passion4]

So far this has been a great year for open source and taxes in general it seems.

This company also released there entire Payroll, Time and Attendance suite as open source. So employers like myself can pay their employees and easily take care of all their payroll related taxes such as W2/W3's, 940/941's, 1099's and state taxes for free.

Re:A good year for open source and taxes...

[passion4]

You must have missed the multiple DOWNLOAD links on their site that point to sourceforge. When you download it, you are downloading the source code, which you are also free to re-distribute.

If thats not open source, I'm not sure what is.

Re:A good year for open source and taxes...

[nick.ian.k]

Sincerest apologies for the gross oversight. I didn't realize the download was from Sourceforge and instead relied on the sheer lack of mentions of the source code availability one would expect. An honest mistake, but slightly belligerent as well. I admit I was wrong and I am sorry.

When we talk open source...

[Creepy Crawler]

On open source, we talk on how we can defer judgment and help from one corporation to anybody we wish. Using MS products means we're at the mercy of MS for proper fixes.

Using an open source kit gives us the ability to find whomever we need to fix it, and not the ordained "fixer". This isnt a slam at MS, but instead is towards the whole proprietary software community.

However, when it comes to taxes and associated penalties, having a company to blame is one of the best recourses one can have. Of course, the IRS can do whatever the hell they want for taxes, but suing the preparer for incompetence is of the utmost importance. Lesser yet, are companies who offer guarantees on their fitness of returns.

I wouldnt trade the ability to point fingers for "free software".

Re:When we talk open source...

[wile_e_wonka]

I think this is only an issue for people that are doing things "on the edge." For the vast majority of us, paying taxes is a pretty straightforward affair with clear black and white answers. A program just helps us do the math and make sure we put the answers in the correct boxes.

I think this relatively simple open source program is intended to serve the masses, not replace accountants.

Re:When we talk open source...

[orangepeel]

This is why the IRS itself should be the primary and controlling developer of software like this. Still open source, yes, so that there's at least some level of transparency that every government agency ought to be providing to the ones paying their salaries. It's time the IRS entered the 21st century.

Re:When we talk open source...

[Thng]

the irs is trying to enter the 21st century. Problem is, there's no one in the private (tax) sector that wants it to happen. When the IRS offers to do for "free" what your corner return mill charges some poor schmuck $200 to fill out 2-3 forms, you can imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth that you'll hear.

Most of them didn't even seem too happy that when IRS changed the free-file program so there's no more cross selling (RAL, upgrades, credit cards, etc). The main reason they do free-file, btw, is to prevent the gov't from getting into the tax prep business... basically, "If you will let X% be eligible to file for free, we won't do it.

Politics also enters into it. No one likes the IRS, and if the IRS did start doing returns, an error made shereby someone misses a deduction, will suddenly turn from an "oops, better file 1040X," to "OMG! theh gov't is steeling from meee!"

Long post short... won't happen anytime soon, imo.

April 18

[ballmerfud]

Subject : [TAX GEEK] Announce
Date: April 18, 2007

We are pleased to announce our latest update of Tax Geek, which fixes a critical off-by-one error in the previous release, which could in some cases lead to (severe) inaccuracies. Please update your current version ASAP. As always, if you find any additional errors, please submit bug reports (and preferably patches) on Source Forge, and Joe will look into when he gets home from class.

The Tax Geek Team

Cool, and about time.

[AJWM]

This is great. I've been doing my taxes on computer since MacInTax on a Mac Plus, nice to see something becoming available for Linux. (And while I'm usually very biased toward FLOSS software, I'd even have paid for a copy of TaxCut if it were available for Linux.)

I don't need the silly "interview style" interface anyway, it's not like even the paper forms are that hard to figure out if you're willing to RTFI (instructions). (And my taxes are complicated enough that I have to include a couple of schedules and a few forms, it's not like a 1040-EZ).

The lack of e-file is no big deal to me, since I never e-file anyway.

Re:Cool, and about time.

[AJWM]

Turbotax Online works perfectly well with Linux and Firefox.

No it doesn't. "Online" doesn't fit my definition of "perfectly", especially not with financial information. That's one reason I don't e-file.

No Warranty

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, lot's of folks here are making a fuss, saying these folks offer
no Warranty, and don't check the accuracy.

Well, guess what NEITHER DOES CLOSED SOURCE.

Your $49.99 QuickTax/EasyTax, whatever doesn't come with a warranty either, besides one on the MEDIA.

If it screws up, guess what, it's YOU who owes the IRS money. The developers are held harmless, because they are simple developers. They are not tax law experts.

Same thing happens when you take your taxes to H&R block. The best 'guarentee' they offer is your money back.

Now if you went to an accountant, or a CA, CCA, etc, They can be held partially accountable.

If you ask me, we need real engineers designing complex software like tax programs, not simple programmers or developers. Stand behind the work, and put your professional licence behind it.

Other wise, might as well use quicktax, and cross your fingers.

Re:No Warranty

[Guilly]

You know what, they've been working at it for a long time and even though they don't offer warranties, they do have a lot of people trying to catch the very few mistakes that it might make. And a very large client base to prove that it does work.

Oh the other side you have GeekTaxOpenSourceLinuxBeautyWithAFatPinguinLogoPro gram made by Joe who looks over the code after dinner and receives bug patches by email from time to time. Sometimes he fixes stuff.

Don't get me wrong, Joe is a good guy. It's just I wouldn't trust this years taxes to him.

Re:Other than Linux, why bother?

[daeg]

The free, web-based packages depend greatly upon a few things. If your income is over or under a certain threshold, you may not qualify. Some states don't qualify. Some only cater to joint filings. Some only fill out the 1040EZ equivalent. A lot of them will file your federal taxes for free, but not file state unless you pay.

I used the free ones for a few years, and now I get close to 100-150 messages per week from Turbo Tax, H&R Block, etc. I think by next year they will outpace Viagra ads, at least for January through April.

Ready, set, outcry!

[drix]

Just when you thought the IRS could get any stupider:

6. Why can't I e-file with this program?

Because of the lack of cooperation of the IRS and the API. When I wrote to the IRS regarding this, I received the following reply:

Thank you for your inquiry.

The government believes that private industry, given its established expertise and experience in the field of electronic tax preparation, has a proven track record in providing the best technology and services available. In addition, the government believes a partnership with private industry will: provide taxpayers with higher quality services by using the existing expertise of the private sector; maximize consumer choice; promote competition within the marketplace; and meet objectives in the least costly manner to taxpayers.

We hope the above information will prove helpful to you.

Sincerely,
The IRS Website Support Team

I suspect that there will either need to be an outcry, or we will need to present this project as a corporation of sorts for cooperation from the IRS. For more info, see the previous FAQ entry. How ... monolithic. I've never even heard of the government referring to itself as "the government" before.

Re:Ready, set, outcry!

[Blakey Rat]

It gives me the impression that the IRS employee didn't know what the question was. I'd like to see what email was sent to them before judging the returned email.

Re:Ready, set, outcry!

[ptbarnett]

It gives me the impression that the IRS employee didn't know what the question was.

It looks like a form reply to me. I suspect it's the one that is sent to people that ask: "why do I have to pay to file electronically?".

Personally, I believe the IRS should be paying electronic filing fees. They are saving at LEAST as much money by not having to enter the data themselves. If you include the error-checking done at the source, there's also a reduction in the number of exceptions they have to handle.

The typical electronic filing fee is $15-17. If the IRS offered a flat $5-10 for every return that was filed electronically, Intuit (and the others) wouldn't have to collect the fee from the consumer, and their volume would probably double.

There used to be a 1040PC form, which could fit an typical return on a single page. It was generated by something like TurboTax, and was optimized for scanning. But, the IRS stopped accepting the 1040PC in 2000.

Re:Ready, set, outcry!

[mspohr]

My tax form is complicated and I don't qualify for the free filing. I'm not going to pay extra for electronic filing to help the government do their paperwork. They should pay me for electronic submission... so I file my 25 page tax form on paper. The cost is minimal to print it out and postage is less than a dollar. Maybe one day they will get a clue but until then they can pay someone to enter all of those numbers into their computer (and check their accuracy).

Re:What the hell?

[TheRaven64]

If you contribute code to an open source project that is a registered non-profit organisation, can you offset the value of the code against income, for tax purposes? If so, then a lot of open source developers might have a negative income, for tax purposes at least.

Comparison with Brazil

[synthespian]

Some of you might find it interesting to compare the US situation with other countries (comparisons are always nice for parameters)...
Brazil's equivalent of the IRS (Receita Federal) offers its version for federal income tax software for download for Windows, Linux, Macintosh and jar files for any other OS Yes, they use Java. It makes sense.
http://www.receita.gov.br/PessoaFisica/ReceitaNet/ RecnetJava.htm

Re:Comparison with Brazil

[wile_e_wonka]

It would be awesome if the US did this. I couldn't imagine it happening though--the IRS is full of very conservative boring people (no offense, I applied to work there as a lawyer, so I fit the mold...well, except that they didn't hire me); I think they wouldn't write a program because they're afraid they'd write it wrong. They know how to tax, not how to write code.

However, I'd be willing to lobby for this. Anyone with me?

Re:Comparison with Brazil

[wile_e_wonka]

I forgot to mention, Virginia allows you to file your state taxes in a form online on their website for free (probably only people with pretty easy taxes can use this form). I used this form this year, and it worked quite well.

Re:Comparison with Brazil

[marcosdumay]

They also have a custom delivery program, that creates a digitaly signed recipt at the client and enters the data directly at the database. The cost savings of this are huge.

After that, the data is analysed with data mining algorithms, correlated with other federal taxes and pernoal data, and a small* list of suspect declarations is automaticaly created for manual inspection. That makes things much faster and accurate.

In short, the governement gets much more by creating and distributing (for free) the program than by using paper. (Altough paper is still supported - your processing wil be slower on that case.)

*Not using paper also reduces the number of honest errors, helpping make the list small.

FreeFile; Public vs. Private

[Noksagt]

by snail mail, which is free.

Sign me up for whatever free postage system you have. Especially if it comes with delivery confirmation, etc. that the conscientious will purchase.

Or electronically, which requires you to buy an accredited program in order to generate the e-forms

70% of taxpayers qualify for free file, which allows them to e-file after using free (as in beer) online tax software. Yes, this percentage should be higher. Yes, anyone should be permitted to create tax preparation software, including open source software, which could e-file. But, it is hardly extortion.

Given the resources at the disposal of the Government, why couldn't they just build a website similar to the ones online tax programs use for data entry and obvious computations (adding columns, tax brackets, etc.). I don't care if the results are not automatically optimized, but at least, you could *fill* the tax forms online and submit the e-forms without the fees required by proprietary programs. IMHO, that should be a basic IRS service.

I actually agree with the IRS--tax software should be in the private sector, not the public sector (government monopolies suck). But there's no reason not to open this up for ALL entrants, rather than granting an oligopoly.

Re:FreeFile; Public vs. Private

[niiler]

As the author of this program I want to reply to a couple of comments in this thread.

First regarding the issue of free-file: AARP will free file for you no matter what your age or income level. At least this is how it has been presented to me by volunteers for the organization. This is noted on the TaxGeek website.

Second, regarding the coding of the US income tax forms, I agree that the tax code ought to be in computer code perhaps even written into the fillable PDF forms the IRS provides. This would be the most concise way to do it to ensure no mistakes are made. However, H&R Block, TurboTax and others feel that this is the government competing against private industry, and therefore, it won't happen.

Regarding this last point, I suspect that when TaxGeek actually becomes competitive with "real" tax programs, we will start having issues with the big companies who will feel that it is unfair that someone is providing software to the public for free (nevermind that it isn't the government). Imagine that our near term idea-list is completed. Specifically that we completely finish the 1040, can write to pdf using XUL-Javascript, and create an interview frontend. Should this happen, TaxGeek becomes platform independent and usable by a wider audience. Presuming that we have thousands of ./ers sending bug reports, TaxGeek may even be more reliable than some commercial products. (I know, in my dreams...)

Finally, regarding liability please see the following IRS publications:

* "Revenue Ruling 85-189: Return preparers; sale of computer program. A person who prepares a computer program and sells it to a taxpayer to use in preparing the tax-payer's income tax return may be an income tax return preparer." Internal Revenue Cumulative Bulletin, volume 1985-2, p. 341.
* "IRS announces that companies who sell return preparation computer software and programs may be considered return preparers subject to penalties." I.R.S. News Release, IR-86-92 (May 6, 1986).

Essentially, the fact that there is a dire warning regarding the software's abilities, and that the software is being given away offer protection to the developers (who are normally more protected than their CPA masters in the IRS standards of practice anyhow). The articles mentioned above don't even guarantee the company's liability in the case of mistake. They only say that the company may be liable under certain conditions. In short our line on it is that you didn't pay any money for this, you were warned about the software's status, and any mistakes are your responsibility, not ours. Also, we try to fix bugs that are reported to us in a timely manner which is also a developer's responsibility according to the IRS.

Re:FreeFile; Public vs. Private

[Rich0]

I've seen lots of arguments that the government shouldn't be in the tax software business. I generally agree.

However, the government should define an open standard for e-filing returns - free of charge. It saves the IRS money, and it saves taxpayers money.

The two are not the same thing.

My state has a website where you can file online. It is hardly tax-preparation software - you just get to fill out the normal forms on a website. It doesn't compete with private industry per-se, but it does allow taxpayers to file for free.

Re:FreeFile; Public vs. Private

[jonatha]

the government should define an open standard for e-filing returns - free of charge

The standard is open, and available from the IRS website last I checked. (Look for Publication 1346.)

IIRC, there is no fee for registering with the IRS to send files.

There is, however, a certification process to go through, and a ton of paperwork involved both in obtaining the certification and keeping all sorts of records about the returns you've uploaded, and the standard itself is byzantine. So if you're not going to recoup any money for the investment of your time, why bother?

Re:FreeFile; Public vs. Private

[Registered Coward v2]

Regarding this last point, I suspect that when TaxGeek actually becomes competitive with "real" tax programs, we will start having issues with the big companies who will feel that it is unfair that someone is providing software to the public for free (nevermind that it isn't the government). Imagine that our near term idea-list is completed. Specifically that we completely finish the 1040, can write to pdf using XUL-Javascript, and create an interview frontend. Should this happen, TaxGeek becomes platform independent and usable by a wider audience. Presuming that we have thousands of ./ers sending bug reports, TaxGeek may even be more reliable than some commercial products. (I know, in my dreams...)

First of all, the tax software providers sell security - if something goes wrong we will help - and would no doubt ask "Who'll help you if TaxGeek screws up - some 30 year old who still lives in his mom's basement?" It's a perception issue, regardless of whether or not it is true; all they have to do is create FUD in the user's mind. Face it, who wants a knock on the door from the taxman?

Secondly, you have to deal with two types of bug reports - software bugs and tax code issues. Who decides if something should be treated in a specific manner or that the software has incorporated accurately the latest changes? And that all the changes are in?

My thoughts is that the way to do this is to partner with an org such as AARP - they can bring real clout and expertise to the table; and in return get a free package their members can use. Of course, they could also use the threat of doing that to make a good deal with one of the big packages if they wanted to.

Finally, regarding liability please see the following IRS publications:

        * "Revenue Ruling 85-189: Return preparers; sale of computer program. A person who prepares a computer program and sells it to a taxpayer to use in preparing the tax-payer's income tax return may be an income tax return preparer." Internal Revenue Cumulative Bulletin, volume 1985-2, p. 341.
        * "IRS announces that companies who sell return preparation computer software and programs may be considered return preparers subject to penalties." I.R.S. News Release, IR-86-92 (May 6, 1986).

Essentially, the fact that there is a dire warning regarding the software's abilities, and that the software is being given away offer protection to the developers (who are normally more protected than their CPA masters in the IRS standards of practice anyhow). The articles mentioned above don't even guarantee the company's liability in the case of mistake. They only say that the company may be liable under certain conditions. In short our line on it is that you didn't pay any money for this, you were warned about the software's status, and any mistakes are your responsibility, not ours. Also, we try to fix bugs that are reported to us in a timely manner which is also a developer's responsibility according to the IRS.

Those are IRS rulings, which can change. My guess is they were done before the advent of free filing software (1985?); the IRS could very well decide that "selling" was confusing and "providing" is a better interpretation. Not to say they would; but in case IRS rulings don't automatically protect you if someone sues you for negligence.

Your software is a neat idea - what does your lawyer say about your liability?

Re:FreeFile; Public vs. Private

[niiler]

First, thanks for the positive comment at the end. Despite the relative ease of coding a project like this (seriously, coding software like GIMP or OpenOffice is WAY harder), most developers have avoided dealing with the tax code due to both perceived liability issues and the perceived complexity of the tax code. Were the tax code truly coded as software, it would be many fewer lines than any of the big open source projects. This is a project where all I have to do is look up the IRS forms and convert them into computer code (after lots of careful reading and consultation).

Regarding FUD. Yup we're probably going to be in for it because the tax software business will not like an upstart and will do just about everything they can to deep six us if they perceive us to be a threat. Between our (*informal*) testing of the code using the IRS PATs inputs and outputs, having posted "Dire Warnings" in the program, classifying the program as ALPHA (use at your own risk), and having a very liberal accountant who, in theory, supports this project and who has offered his help in reviewing results, I feel that there are several layers of protection in place. Are they enough? Who knows, but at least I'm actually doing something about getting working code out there for people to try. You'll note that many people are taking a very healthy viewpoint of this and are saying up front: "I'm testing this code versus this other program to see what the results are."

The IRS rulings were made after such tax software already existed. Computer tax software has existed for a relatively long period of time, and definitely before the internet as we know it existed. I worked for a Wilmington, DE accounting firm as a temp for a short period while I was going through grad school, and we used some kind of archaic package that ran from DOS. Can the IRS change its mind on these rulings at any point? Sure. But I'm not going to worry about it until it happens.

Regarding partnerships with other organizations, you can't even get your foot in the door without a working code base. So while your suggestion is sound, you're putting the cart before the horse. TaxGeek will be loved by some, reviled by others, and along the way it will slowly progress into a mature product which either will or will not be adopted by organizations like AARP. But there has to be a product first before such a review can begin. AARP decides what product they will use after a thorough review.

Finally, if all TaxGeek does is to get TurboTax, TaxAct or some other company to provide a native Linux-based tax-product for users such as myself, it has accomplished its goal: to enable Linux users to do their taxes without switching operating systems and without being connected to the internet if they so desire.

Re:FreeFile; Public vs. Private

[Registered Coward v2]

The IRS rulings were made after such tax software already existed. Computer tax software has existed for a relatively long period of time, and definitely before the internet as we know it existed. I worked for a Wilmington, DE accounting firm as a temp for a short period while I was going through grad school, and we used some kind of archaic package that ran from DOS. Can the IRS change its mind on these rulings at any point? Sure. But I'm not going to worry about it until it happens.

My only point was that free tax software probably didn't exist when the ruling was made so the IRS could decide that merely providing it could open one up to legal liability - and if I were a vendor of retail tax software I'd be arguing that it is unfair for us to have a legal obligation that others don't simply because they give away their work - think of the taxpayers (or if you are an elected official - Think of the JOBS and the CHILDREN!).

Regarding partnerships with other organizations, you can't even get your foot in the door without a working code base. So while your suggestion is sound, you're putting the cart before the horse. TaxGeek will be loved by some, reviled by others, and along the way it will slowly progress into a mature product which either will or will not be adopted by organizations like AARP. But there has to be a product first before such a review can begin. AARP decides what product they will use after a thorough review.

Have you thought of approaching them and asking if they would like a seat on your board - I'd make the pitch that you want to make it easier for people to file electronically; and making such software available to seniors would be good for them. You'd like someone who can help you achieve that goal who has experience dealing with the politics involved. A local chapter may be more receptive than the national org; and all you are looking for is someone who could champion it for you as the codebase matures.

Finally, if all TaxGeek does is to get TurboTax, TaxAct or some other company to provide a native Linux-based tax-product for users such as myself, it has accomplished its goal: to enable Linux users to do their taxes without switching operating systems and without being connected to the internet if they so desire.

Agreed. As one off my other posts (Moded -1 since I forgot that saying anything bad about OSS is obviously a troll on /.) pointed out I think you face an uphill battle.

OTHO, anything that increases choice and competition is good, which is why I wish you well.

Re:Personal Income Tax?

[Professor_UNIX]

too bad there is no law stating that americans have to pay an income tax. the 16th amendment was not properly ratified

You've been listening to too many scammers. Article 1, Section 8 already gave Congress the powers to collect taxes, including income taxes: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;". The 16th Amendment merely removed the confusion about the apportionment of those taxes. The only people that complain about the 16th Amendment being improperly ratified are kooks.

Re:What the hell?

[hpavc]

I would like to see a link to a statute please for the real IRS deduction value. Otherwise you would see World of Warcraft Guild's forming Not For Profits for example.

Re:Personal Income Tax?

[argoff]

When someone asks why does my daughter has a car seat, don't say "because it's the Law". Fuck that! It's because of her safety. Well the same is true of the IRS and income tax. Don't say "because of some legal technicality". Fuck that! They have no right to tax me like that even if the law was a sloid as gold.

What this reminds me of is those poor workers who suffered and strained so hard to make communisim a utopia, when what they really needed to be doing is doing everything they can to defy the system tooth and nail. Well, the same is true here. Instead of going thru intricate legal arguments and legal technicalities as to why the US income tax system is illegal, we should just admit that they have that power, that it is an unjust power, and act thru every legal and illegal means possible to defy and evade taxes.

is it just me, or

[Colin Smith]

Is the tax system out of control?

That's a lot of bureaucrats...

Re:is it just me, or

[greylion3]

No, but enforcing income tax is illegal - please read about Joe(Joseph) Banister, Larken Rose, and House Resolution 2525:

http://www.halexandria.org/dward295.htm
http://www.halexandria.org/dward294.htm
http://www.halexandria.org/dward293.htm
http://www.rense.com/general66/irstrial.htm
http://www.royalrife.com/banister.html
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update2005 -06-28.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=44956

Re:Personal Income Tax?

[skeeterbug]

they let you have computer time for your jail cell again?** telling people to break the law and go to jail is just absurd. ** oh, you mean you do pay your taxes so you aren't in jail, but you advise others to break the law. nice.

Re:Personal Income Tax?

[disturbedite]

if you knew the history behind this subject you wouldn't have posted what you did. there were and still are powerful banking interests (particularally in europe) that tried many times before 1913 to get that type of law or amendment cuz americans WEREN'T taxed before on their personal income. they finally succeeded in 1913 by only getting a handful of legislators to ratify it (at midnight i think) cuz THEY KNEW they (the fed) couldn't get it passed any other way. thats one of the main reasons they always failed in the past, then soft money and coprorate interest tooks its first huge victory and stranglehold on our govt. and an amendment to the constitution requires a 2/3 approval! NOT ONE PENNY OF OUR INCOME TAX GOES TO PAY FOR GOVT. WAGES, SERVICES OR ANYTHING OF THAT KIND. its goes to pay off the federal reserve banking system that issues our money. the power to do that switched from the U.S. GOVT (which is always how it should have stayed, thats how its set up in the declaration of independence! many presidents before this warned against changing it. see jefferson & lincoln for example). by paying off the fed i mean our income tax goes to pay off the interest they (the fed) charge the govt. for issuing the money! it was all set up that way by construction, not by our govt., but by the central banks of europe. a president, i forget which one, but it was within the last 50 years if memory serves me, started a commission which investigated this and it found indeed that not one penny of the personal income tax paid by americans goes to anything but paying off the fed's interest that they charge the govt. for the issuing. (i would think that a president would know that already). see here for more info about what happened to jfk when he issued executive order 11,100: http://www.rense.com/general44/exec.htm (i'm not saying thats the sole reason why he was assassinated, but i'm pretty sure its a safe bet that it was a factor of some importance).
AND ppl who care about things being done the right way in govt., the way they were set up to be done by our fore-fathers and constitution ARE NOT kooks, they're the ones who care. apparently not you.

Re:What the hell?

[TheRaven64]

My post contained a question, not a statement. However, many Free Software projects have 501(c)(3) non-profit organisations associated with them, such at the FreeBSD Foundation or The Apache Software Foundation. Code contributed to them may or may not count as tax deductible. If it doesn't, then it might be possible to count the time spent working on code donated to the foundation as a tax-deductible expense. I am not a US citizen or an accountant though, so I am just thinking out loud at this point.

The next stage

[Colin Smith]

Is to use the royal we.

Re:What the hell?

[hpavc]

Don't see any claimable value, donating your time shoveling snow or working in a soup kitchen for a not-for profit isn't going to get you any value either. Donating a vehicle or similar asset such as a stock that has a actual value, yes there are many provisions for that. If your thinking that you bill yourself out at $180.00 an hour and should be able to claim that value writing figlet fonts, its not going going to happen for sure.

I'm in the 14% that do it by hand.

[Maxo-Texas]

I have real estate, stocks, make a good income.

It takes me a grand total of 2 hours to do mine by hand.

Something *FREE* like this would be a nice extra safety check.

Unless you have a huge amount of money (top 5% of the country) you probably don't need advanced software or tax accounting methods.

Re:I'm in the 14% that do it by hand.

[Jeff1946]

Having the software makes it easy to check how close you are to Alternative Minimum Tax. I know I am getting closer every year. Also if just before filing suppose you remembered you gave $50 to a charity which is probably worth about $15 to you. With the computer easy to rerun. By hand doubt you would bother.

Not entirely true

[mgkimsal2]

I had taxes done at HRBlock last year. I normally do them myself, but between multiple employers, multiple home sales, multiple streams of income (consulting, wife's business), and having lived in 3 states, I wanted someone with more experience to take care of things. They offered a 'peace of mind' program for an extra $39 to cover mistakes up to $5000. I took it, and actually had chance to use it. I missed this, but so did they - no schedule D was filed at all. Just an oversight, but it was an extra $400+ in taxes I owed. HRBlock redid all the amended paperwork in a week, I paid the taxes, and they cut me a check to reimburse me a week later. If/when I get an interest/penalties letter, HRBlock will cut a check for that as well. While I don't normally use a service like that, they *do* offer some degree of protection. True it's at an extra cost, but when you're talking about potentially thousands in taxes/penalties, being able to get any sort of insurance is probably worth it.

Because...

[Svartalf]

Not everyone is online all the time.

A web-filing program requires this.

A native Linux program does not.

Re:Because...

[maxume]

This is like saying that plants won't work because they 'require' the sun. If an online program works, and prints to paper, it is sufficient, and 'cross platform'.

Hehheh you Americans should harass your IRS

[cerberusss]

[smugness level="high"]Really ridiculous, the situations you Americans are in. We Dutchies have it much better :-) We get IRS-developed software for Windows, Linux and Mac OS, built with wxWidgets.[/smugness]

Re:Hehheh you Americans should harass your IRS

[Kalriath]

[smugness level="high"]Really ridiculous, the situations you Americans are in. We Dutchies have it much better :-) We get IRS-developed software for Windows, Linux and Mac OS, built with wxWidgets.[/smugness] And we New Zealanders don't have to file everything - the Inland Revenue Department automatically calculates it, and fires off a debt letter or refund cheque. We win.

Debt collection

[Stonehand]

A tax filer who has debt might see his tax refund garnished -- for certain kinds of debt, at least. One of the examples most likely to be combined with bitterness would be non-payment of child support.

Re:Debt collection

[Skater]

Good point - thanks. :)

Re:Debt collection

[Dzonatas]

Child support is not always possible to pay. Consider they will take 50% of someones gross income to apply it to child-support. 50% is the most the gov garnish from a single check. If that doesn't cover the child support payment, probably because the Judge set the payment too high and not by actual income (the common case), then it is not a full payment. Interested is then added at 10% p.a., which adds up faster then what any commercial bank pays for their savings account. Tax time rolls around and the IRS sees there is incomplete payments, and so they take the entire refund check/tax benefits. Do you see the incentive the Judge has to set the garnishment higher than 50% of what someones paycheck will be? The Judge wants to get paid. This fraud has racketed billions of dollars every year by putting money interests before family.

Re:Debt collection

[cayenne8]

"Child support is not always possible to pay. Consider they will take 50% of someones gross income to apply it to child-support. "

See? THIS is the reason you never give your real name to a chick....

This is a bad idea.

[Panzergheist]

Most accountants and commercial software offer some form of audit protection. Assuming you pay for that protection, if your tax return flags an IRS audit, your accountant(s) or the company making the commercial software will work with the IRS on your behalf.

The biggest question of assurance that I have with this is, who is going to keep up with the ever changing tax rules required for this software to be practical?

I love open-source software and all, but this project just strikes me as very pointless and risky.

Re:This is a bad idea.

[stanmann]

You realize that Most "audits" aren't flagged audits, they are random. and for MOST people an audit takes 15 minutes.

Re:Other than Linux, why bother?

[daeg]

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean spam from outside companies. I use a unique address for every online system (well, most) and I have yet to receive outside spam from them. But, for instance, I used H&R block rouhgly 3 years ago, and just a precursory search of my Gmail inbox shows 45 e-mails from H&R Block inviting me to come back and do my taxes for free. I used TurboTax this year, and have not finalized my return (waiting on a few things to get clarified yet), and I get an e-mail almost every other day pleading with me to come back and finish.

Re:Personal Income Tax?

[/dev/trash]

So you don't pay taxes then?

Spread Sheet Alternative

[ginlorax]

Not quite open source. But free as in beer.

I've been using this guy's spread sheet for the past three years. Labled as 'Excel' but I've actually used it in Open Office. Prints nice.

http://home.mchsi.com/~taxcalculator/

This year I should donate a few dollars to his paypal account. If I get a refund of course.

MOD PARENT UP

[ClioCJS]

I was going to say that, but he beat me to it.

Open Office tax form spreadsheet

[amightywind]

I shouldn't do this. But please give the guy some cash. It is extremely useful, and works with OpenOffice. My taxes were fairly complex and they came out perfectly. Maybe you can help out and make an even better version.

Re:HOW many forms?

[viper66]

There are several thousand forms actually, those are just some of the more common ones.

www.hrblock.com not with konqueror

[dfries]

I pointed konqueror 3.5.5 at www.hrblock.com, the first page took a little while to load, but clicking on the online filing page seemed to get it in a loop. The page was always blank and the status line said how many images had downloaded and after 15 minutes and the count of images going over 1000 I decided I wasn't even going to see what the web page looked like.

TurboTax pays any penalties plus interest

[sideshow]

http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax_products/turbotax_a dvantages/guaranteed_accurate_online_tax_prep.jhtm l

But, you could input false info and get in trouble for tax fraud, although TurboTax says it will flag anything that will get you a audit.

Re:Personal Income Tax?

[Professor_UNIX]

Well, you've convinced me. I'm going to call my tax accountant on Monday and let them know their services will no longer be necessary now that I realize that income taxes are illegal! Though, there is the slight problem that the government owes me several thousand dollars. :-( If I don't file a tax form, how can I get this money back that my employer has illegal withheld for them!?

Free as in beer tax software

[platyk]

If you just want free as in beer tax software TaxACT Standard is truly free for federal returns--even the e-filing is free. I've used it for the last two years and been pleased with it. It's a crippleware business model--the Standard version gives you lots of "encouragement" to pay money for the Deluxe version. However the Standard version is quite functional and worked great for me. And some limitations of the Standard version can be worked around: only the Deluxe version allows you to save your tax return as a PDF file, but just install PDFCreator and print to it from the Standard version and you get the same result.

I like the direct form entry mode of TaxACT. It does have an interview mode too, but I never cared much for tax software interviews--they ask you a bunch of weird questions in some arbitrary sequence that is not the same order I have my papers in. I start by entering all the tax forms I received (W-2, 1099) and the tax return is 90% done. Then I just go through the 1040 line by line and fill in the rest. TaxACT links to supporting worksheets as needed.

But I am glad to see that someone is now working on free as in speech tax software.

TaxCut on Linux

[CheeseTroll]

FWIW, I had no problem installing TaxCut on my linux (Kubuntu) box using WINE. Granted, I won't actually be *using* it on my computer for our actual tax filing, since my wife does our taxes on her computer, which runs WinXP. But it was one of the smoothest .exe installs I've done under Wine, and it seemed to start up and run just fine.

Re:TaxCut on Linux

[AJWM]

Interesting. I ought to give that a shot, I've got a few previous years' TaxCut around I can compare results with, too.

Re:Personal Income Tax?

[argoff]

It costs 40K per year to hold someone in jail. They couldn't afford it even if they wanted to. Perhaps they make an example out of a handful of people every once in a while, but that's about the most they can do.

They take away up to half your life earnings. You are far more likely to be ruined by giving into them than by defiance. "those who ran and hid from the guards risked getting shot, but those who went with them were genocided", Germany. 1943

Re:Personal Income Tax?

[disturbedite]

no doubt. very well said.

Re:Personal Income Tax?

[disturbedite]

no. actually i don't pay the personal income tax. but thats cuz i'm currently self employed. (unemployed lol) i do a bit of illustration and graphic design on the side. nothing major. not enough to qualify for the "so called" income tax. let me make this clear. i didn't bring this up for reasons you might think. its up to you. you can take the gamble. its wise to pick your battles tho. i just brought this up to make ppl aware. ppl can't do anything if they don't know about it.

Re:Personal Income Tax?

[disturbedite]

very, very well said. especially stating that you DO owe them money when you sign the "contract/waiver" so to speak. the supreme court has indeed ruled that the 16th amendment did not give congress any new taxing powers. again. very well spoken.

choice?

[chrwei]

I wonder in what way they can justify preventing a newcomer in the field under the guise "maximize consumer choice". Wouldn't "maximize" imply that the more the better?

And also saying: "We promote competition therefore you are not allowed to be competitive". wtf.

awesome

[RandySC]

Maybe it can be extended so that you can rewrite the jurat above the signature to make a reservation of rights. Why are you agreeing to penalties of perjury and not penalty? Did you do it more than once? Were you located on Federal Territory when you signed it? No? Change it to reflect the same.

There is no such law requiring Americans to file

[Anonymous Coward]

income tax. The system is actually 100% voluntary. Ask the IRS for the specific law that requires it.
All you will get is double talk and mis/dis-information. But, if you do you sign a contract the all information provided is true. Kinda like Martha Stewart/Scooter Libby. It's lying that can get you in trouble. Don't believe me? Check this out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TljEe0Dzemc

I _KNEW_ I should have procrastinated!

[smchris]

Perhaps all the better. I can give it a test this year for next year.

Dutchies can do that, too

[Stachel]

FWIW: on the site of the Belastingdienst (the Dutch equivalent of the American IRS), you can download official Linux versions of their software to file (some of) your Dutch tax returns.

The Windows version already worked under Linux with Wine, but since 2006 there's a native Linux version. Macintosh is supported as well (since 2004, or so).

Who cares?

[remin8]

Don't get me wrong, I love linux and have used it solely for over 4 years now, but why? Most big names offer online versions of their software. With an application that can easily be developed for the net, why create it for the Linux Desktop?

It's not even a matter of having someone to blame

[Sycraft-fu]

It is having some experts backing it up. One of the major reasons to use tax software rather than just doing it by hand is that they help guide you. The companies that write them are staffed with a bunch of tax accountants, as well as programmers. They are current on tax law, they know the kind of things people will have trouble with and they help deal with that, and they check for errors. That's why I buy one, I'm not 100% sure I understand everything I need to file (my taxes are massively complex, but they are several forms). The tax software guides me.

This, well it sounds like they've just collected together the forms and added some automation. Great, but not really that helpful. That's not a whole lot better than a spreadsheet.

Often the programming isn't really the major part of a package, it's the specialized expertise behind it. Tax software is certainly the case.

Ya they do

[Sycraft-fu]

The majors all offer some kind of audit defense. Sometimes it's extra, some times it's built in. Basically if you get audited they help and in most cases if the money you owe was a result of an error they or their software made, they pay it. http://www.hrblock.com/popups/pop_wfa_features.htm l if the spiel on H&R Block's audit protection for their software.

Also there's the simple matter of trust. H&R Block makes their living doing shit like this. If they don't do a good job, they'll go out of business. The guy that wrote this, he's a physics professor.