Posted on 01/09/2004 2:37:07 AM PST by kattracks
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:41:39 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The IRS this year will flag taxpayers who use its free electronic filing program, a change that has touched off a privacy firestorm. Industry leader Intuit says it simply won't comply with an IRS directive to identify by electronic code free e-filers who use its TurboTax software.
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
Rank | Location | Receipts | Donors/Avg | Freepers/Avg | Monthlies | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
44 | North Dakota | 65.00 |
1 |
65.00 |
28 |
2.32 |
|
|
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
On the other hand, 'them' and 'they' are our hired help-- and it's so hard to get good help these days. I'm just a retired head of a family of four, and every year my return is a 30 page book.
There are so many ways they could allow me to file electronically-- hell, they could just let me email the damn thing. But no, email is just too complicated for those clowns. The IRS is typical of too many government and large company operations, straight out of Dilbert.
but I thought IRS directives were law!
They've got every scrap of information about you on the form already. Why should you get your shorts in a twist over them knowing what software you used to file with?
I'm all for paranoia, but lets be rational about it ;-)
No, they're government regulations intended to implement Title 26 of the United States Code.
Kindly learn the difference.
I ALWAYS do my taxes the old-fashioned way: ink pen, calculator, and shove it all in the envelope the day before April 15th.
Why should I convenience the government?
What eventually became the 16th Amendment, yes.
and what is the income that according to the regulations isn't taxable due to the Constitution???
Income from renting real estate. The income tax law in question treated said tax as an indirect tax. In the Pollock case, the Supreme Court ruled that taxes on income derived from real estate rents were direct taxes, and thus subject to apportionment by census (a painful process). Incidentally, OTHER income taxes were unaffected by the Pollock case and still classed as indirect taxes, and were thus completely Constitutional.
Exactly. Previous decisions had ruled that very same income tax law constitutional in all particulars. The Supreme Court very abruptly reversed themselves in Pollock. The next great flip-flop of that sort would be in the late 1930s, with the incredible expansion of the meaning of "interstate commerce." Generally, when the court flips that suddenly on something that had already been decided, it's a good guess that the new decision is wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.