

IRS commissioner doesn't file own taxes - says it's too complex - anderzole
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/75119-irs-commissioner-doesnt-file-his-own-taxes

======
mnemonicsloth
Legislators write the tax code.

Their primary incentive is re-election. From that perspective, an unfathomably
complex tax code has three points in its favor:

1\. It allows legislators to avoid accountability for any tax increases. It
also complicates revenue accounting, so they can propose changes to the tax
code and call them "tax cuts" even if they don't change revenue much overall.

2\. A complicated, arbitrary, intimidating tax code makes legislators
powerful. They can grant favorable treatment to their friends and twist the
arm of powerful entities that get in their way. They aren't held accountable
for this behavior because of #1.

3\. Accountants and tax lawyers are small groups of people who will all lose a
lot if the tax code is ever simplified. They also have money and connections,
so they can inflict a lot of pain on anyone who threatens their business. The
public at large is too big and diffuse to force political action over its
losses to tax-related friction.

A complicated tax code has one major point against. Voters don't like it. But
then, this is a _tax code_ we're talking about. Its purpose is to _take away
voters' money_. No matter how it's organized, they aren't going to be terribly
happy about it.

So is the tax code we have today really all that surprising?

~~~
wisty
4\. Some people care. Some people don't care. The people who care can spend
time and money looking for loopholes. The people who don't care can pay their
taxes. So everyone is happy, right?

------
aaronblohowiak
This is the operative quote: "I don't write the tax laws. Congress writes the
tax laws so that's a whole different discussion."

~~~
tc
No, he doesn't get off that easy.

I sympathized with that line of reasoning much more before reading Thoreau's
_Resistance to Civil Government_. Now I'm convinced that he should either
resign or be held as equally complicit [1].

<http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html>

[1] He should either be willing to defend the current system, or he should
stop being its agent. Enforcing a law brings the same moral responsibility as
writing a law.

Timely, in another thread we are celebrating Google for ceasing to be an agent
of the Chinese government. We should never allow moral actors to absolve
themselves of responsibility by pointing to a far-away law.

~~~
blackguardx
I think he got to be the IRS commissioner by either 1: believing the laws are
just or 2: being willing to enforce unjust laws.

~~~
akamaka
3\. Not caring whether the laws are just, but being willing to enforce them?

------
jcdreads
Were he the _author_ of the tax code then this would be deliciously ironic.
Since he is the commissioner of a large federal agency, I'd imagine (indeed,
hope!) that he has better uses of his time than preparing his returns. Like
fixing <your least favorite thing about the IRS/>, for example.

~~~
dkersten
* Like fixing <your least favorite thing about the IRS/>*

Such as overly complex tax laws?

~~~
jcdreads
Well, the commissioner can't do that. Congress and the President do that (or
don't).

------
jackowayed
I don't really see this as a big deal.

Think of how horrible it would be if he did something wrong. The average
American knows that if they mess up 1 box, as long as all the final numbers
come out to about what they should (which is easy to check), it's likely no
one will notice.

But someone will notice if the IRS commissioner messes up his taxes, even if
it's just forgetting to initial a box, and it would look horrible. Can you
imagine how much fun John Stewart would have with it? He'd probably be able to
avoid resigning, but his chance of being nominated after Obama's reelection
would be basically 0.

~~~
bwhite
If he forgot to initial a box, John Stewart would have a laugh at his expense
and it would underscore the notion that filing is complicated (and should be
simplified). But that's about it.

The salient point here is that there is no right answer to even moderately
complex tax filings. Ralph Nader did this experiment a while back. The same
relatively simple tax filing was sent to something like two dozen IRS offices.
Each one checked the filing and weighed in on the correctness of the form.
Every office said that the filing was wrong but they all came up with
different and widely varying figures for what the "correct" figure should be.
I suspect a large part of the reason this guy uses a preparer (software in
this case) is so that even if "errors" are discovered, he can plausibly claim
that he did the best he could and can expect leniency. (Timothy Geithner,
white courtesy phone please.) Think you can just ask the IRS for instruction
and/or definitive rulings? They get it wrong, a lot.
([http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2005reports/20054014...](http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2005reports/200540146fr.html))

Bignum hours and dollars are spent by individuals and corporations attempting
to do taxes correctly. The time suck and opportunity costs are massive.

~~~
dalke
"If he forgot to initial a box". Perhaps you remember Zoë Baird? She didn't
pay the "nanny tax" on an illegal alien, and that controversy prevented her
from getting to be the attorney general.

That's more than a box, yes, but then the followup nominee, Kimba Wood, DID
pay the nanny tax, and herself broke no laws, but had hired another illegal
alien. The echo from the previous nominee's case, plus her 5 days of training
as a Playboy bunny while a student, prevented her from being attorney general,
giving us Janet Reno.

It's really hard to say which things will cause problems.

As for the rest - absolutely agree.

------
duncanj
Two things have happened in the last ten years that made tax filing harder for
a large number of Americans. One was closing TeleTax. This telephone-based
system was effective and had good customer satisfaction. The IRS closed it and
forced people to use an e-file provider. I think they did it because of the
ideological privatization thing.

The other thing was the change in the NYS tax system to get rid of the IT-100
form. This form was like writing in your address and attaching your W2, and
then the NYSDTF would calculate your tax and send you a bill. This was
replaced with the harder-to-fill-out IT-150.

So, tax filing for most Americans, in the age of the internet, has only gotten
harder. It's retarded.

------
yardie
You could streamline the US tax code but you'd eventually end up at the same
point today. The tax code is written to encourage one type of behavior and
penalize another. A normal working class guy would probably love a simplified
tax code. But as soon as he starts making investments, buying property, saving
for retirement, "going green" then he probably also wants adjustments for
these activities.

Everyone wants to help the underclass but no one wants to pay more taxes to do
it. So the government has to get creative about getting that money. Taking out
loans, selling bonds, and getting money through sales tax, corporate tax,
tourist tax, utilities taxes.

The mentality is insane, we want simpler taxes for everyone, but at an
individual level we want exemptions for ourselves.

This is the last year I'm filing taxes for myself. Through a pay rise, a new
mortgage and a renovation my last tax bill was shot. I was able to get help
through a friend so that I paid about the same amount as last year but I know,
going forward, it's going to require a professional to keep me from getting
screwed.

------
marze
If the tax codes were simplified it would obliterate the revenue of the tax-
help businesses.

Seriously, that is why it hasn't been simplified.

~~~
nfnaaron
No. You think tax preparers are specifically the ones keeping the current tax
regime in place?

No. It's Congress. We will never have a simplified tax code, ever. Not a flat
tax, not a fair tax, not a VAT, nothing.

Because Congress will never give up the power to give and take tax breaks.
It's the power to give tax breaks and pork that keeps the pig-trough filled to
overflowing.

------
patrickgzill
Is a law that a person cannot understand, legal?

------
RyanMcGreal
Would we be outraged if we learned that the CEO of Ford sends his car to a
mechanic for oil changes and tune-ups?

~~~
ankeshk
What would be the reaction if we learned that the CEO of Ford didn't know how
to drive a car?

Shouldn't confuse usage with fixing.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
When cars were simpler, maintenance was considered part of the requisite skill
to own a car - it was considered part of normal usage. Now that they have
become a lot more complex and specialized, cars can do a lot more - but the
trade-off is that it's no longer practical to maintain your car yourself. It
makes more sense to outsource that activity to specialists.

------
noss
My perspective from Sweden, where filing taxes is _very_ easy is that filing
taxes in USA must be difficult because those who oppose taxes there don't want
it to be simple.

Would it be possible to streamline taxes in USA? Would it not be interpreted
as "making it easier to collect even more taxes"?

~~~
RK
_Would it be possible to streamline taxes in USA? Would it not be interpreted
as "making it easier to collect even more taxes"?_

It depends. If you reduce the complexity of the tax system, thus reducing the
required size of the tax agency, many of the same people who are anti-tax (or
rather pro-lower tax) would be OK with it, because they would see that as
streamlining the government.

The common idea seems to be that the tax code is very complex because there
are so many add-ons to allow you pay less tax. Most US federal income tax
payers can choose a simplified option, but they will not pay the minimum
amount of taxes.

People, who for example think federal income tax is illegal, comprise a small
enough group that they couldn't prevent simplifying the system (or any change
for that matter).

