Jane Novack for Forbes writes: With the April 15th
deadline approaching, a lot of stressed out taxpayers are probably
wondering why the process of filing tax returns can’t be made simpler.
Why, for example, given all the information the Internal Revenue Service
gets about us, can’t the IRS figure out what we owe? A recent report from ProPublica and NPR,
looked at the role TurboTax maker Intuit and anti-tax activist Grover
Norquist have played in blocking the institution of return free filing.
In the following guest post, economist Arlene Holen, a senior fellow at the Technology Policy Institute
and a former Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and
Budget official, makes the case for why return-free filing isn’t a
viable option now. Holen is also the co- author of a longer 2010 report
that makes the case against the IRS getting into business of preparing
tax returns. The Institute counts Intuit among its many corporate
supporters.
Arlene Holen writes: In the midst of juggling paperwork and forms during tax season it’s
tempting to imagine a world where your income tax forms spontaneously
appear in your mailbox or inbox, filled out by the good graces of the
IRS, ready for signature, free of charge. Return-free filing is touted
in a recent piece by ProPublica and NPR, which makes the case that
Americans could be spared needless frustration, anxiety and paperwork
were it not for the lobbying efforts of Intuit, maker of TurboTax, and
the pernicious influence of anti-tax activists. Unfortunately, the facts
tell a different story and return-free filing advocates rest their case
on a number of fallacies:
1) Return-free systems in European countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Spain are a model for the US.
Studies of tax administration in other countries show that their
return-free systems operate under far simpler tax codes than we have in
the US. The highly complex US tax code has special rules for retirement
accounts, charitable deductions, capital gains, itemized deductions,
and work expenses. Social and economic policies are implemented in the
US code by numerous tax incentives that would make a return-free system
difficult, if not impossible, to administer.
2) The government already has the information it needs to prepare your returns from your employer and your bank.
Government preparation of returns would require payers of
income—employers, financial institutions, even governments writing
benefits checks—to incur costs by significantly moving up reporting
deadlines for the IRS to get the information in enough time so that tax
refunds are not delayed. Advocates of return-free filing conveniently
ignore these third-party costs. A study I did for the Technology Policy
Institute with Joseph Cordes of the George Washington University
calculated that third-party costs would range from $500 million to $5
billion annually and would fall disproportionally on small businesses.
Higher employment costs are not what we need when jobs are scarce.
3) Preparation of returns would be easy for the IRS; it would be doing essentially the same work it does now.
The IRS is a hard-pressed agency, facing a budget crunch even as its
workload is rapidly expanding under the Affordable Care Act. Its
computer systems have long been plagued with problems and cost overruns,
as pointed out by the Government Accountability Office and others. A
2003 Treasury report found that under the current complex tax code,
providing taxpayers with pre-filled returns would add to the workload of
the IRS. Clearly, additional investment in staff, equipment and
facilities would be required.
4) Signing an IRS-prepared form would be voluntary; if you don’t trust the government you don’t have to. Under
a return-free system, advocates argue that taxpayers would have the
option of accepting a pre-filled return, making changes, or preparing
their own return. However, taxpayers signing the form would nevertheless
retain responsibility and liability for errors—even those due to the
IRS. It is plausible that many would be unwilling to challenge an
official IRS document even if it is erroneous, a problem particularly
for low-income filers and those with English as a second language. Whose
heart doesn’t race a bit when opening a letter with the dreaded IRS
return address?
5) California’s ReadyReturn program has been popular with filers.
People who use California’s return-free system report that they are
happy with it, but the vast majority have declined to use it. In the
first year it was widely available, only 1.5% of those eligible (only
those with the simplest returns are eligible) used ReadyReturn and in
the second year only 3.2%. Last year, fewer than 90,000 taxpayers used
the system out of roughly one million who were eligible. Advocates
blame a lack of marketing budget for the program but a more likely
reason so few Californians use it is that checking a government-prepared
return for completeness and accuracy requires much of the same work as
preparing a return from scratch. California’s experience is consistent
with a survey of potentially eligible federal taxpayers, conducted as
part of the 2003 Treasury study. Most respondents said that they were
not interested in participating in a return-free program.
California’s tax agency says that ReadyReturns are cheaper to process
than regular paper returns, but the study I did with Joseph Cordes
found that such savings likely result from electronic filing rather than
the government-prepared return itself. The IRS encourages electronic
filing and the proportion of filers doing so is now close to 75%.
The estimated cost of the federal tax system to individuals and the
government is roughly 10% of personal income taxes collected, not
counting third-party costs. Reducing those costs is a worthy goal.
However, this would be best accomplished by simplifying the complex US
tax code. That is also the best way to minimize the aggravation of tax
day.