Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Direct File won't happen in 2026, IRS tells states

nextgov.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 284 posts

Re: Direct File won't happen in 2026, IRS tells states

#271

Post by ClayShentrup »

mindslight wrote: post #246
ClayShentrup wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it seems like Approval voting just moves the spoiler effect into how people vote that's orthogonal. ranked voting methods already have (arguably more severe) response to strategic voting AND ALSO can fail IIA even with no strategy applied, just by changing an irrelevant alternative. > Personally I think the possibilities of circular ties under Ranked Pairs is oversold. what does that even mean? we have VSE figures…

Restating my disclaimer of "It's been a while since I've studied the details of voting systems" ... > ranked voting methods ... can fail IIA even with no strategy applied, just by changing an irrelevant alternative. Can you clarify whether you're referring to some ranked methods (eg IRV), or all ranked methods (ie including ranked pairs) ? > that's not under or oversold, it's just measured performance. Isn't this due…

it's mathematically proven that all ranked methods can fail IIA. see arrow's theorem.

> Isn't this due to defining "performance" in a way that is congruent with Approval (/ Score)

1. i did not define performance in a way that is congruent with approval/score. scores are not utilities. they are the modification of utilities via ignorance, normalization, and strategy.

2. that the correct social welfare function is just the sum of all voter utilities (the definition of "performance") is mathematically proven. https://www.rangevoting.org/UtilFoundns

> do I Approve my latent terrible party or not?

this is not a "problem". it's well understood. https://www.rangevoting.org/RVstrat6

approval voting obliterates IRV ("RCV") with any mixture of strategic or honest voters, so i'm not sure why you're bringing up strategy. https://www.rangevoting.org/StratHonMix

Re: Direct File won't happen in 2026, IRS tells states

#272

Post by simoncion »

foxglacier wrote: post #249
simoncion wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just look at the dense jargon ... There are 32 of them! What the hell is all that? For every form I've ever had to file with the IRS, there's a corresponding set of instructions. Those instructions inevitably have a definitions section and/or define the terms in-line. The instructions for form W8-BEN-E are at [0]. The definitions section starts at printed page 4 and continues through to printed page 7. Some terms y…

Yea I did look at the guide but it's a huge amount of work that I wasn't prepared to do just to make a couple of hundred dollars from one client. Imagine you start at the first option: Nonparticipating FFI. A nonparticipating FFI means an FFI that is not a participating FFI, deemed-compliant FFI, or exempt beneficial owner. OK, then what's an FFI, a participating FFI, a deemed-compliant FFI, and an exempt beneficial…

That's a lot of words to agree with my objection to

> ...your implied claim that the IRS dumps a bunch of jargon on you and leaves you to rely on general-purpose search engines to figure out what the fuck they're talking about.

I never suggested that satisfying the requirements of complex parts of the tax code would -somehow- not be complex. I even indicated support for talking to a lawyer when confused:

> I'm definitely not going to claim that it's foolish to consult with a tax lawyer (or similar such thing) when one is significantly uncertain about one's taxes.

If you'd slowed down and thought carefully about what I wrote, you probably would have spent less time overall than it took to write up your comment.

Speaking of reading too quickly:

> ...you look to see if you're a "Certified Deemed-Compliant Sponsored, Closely Held Investment Vehicle", which doesn't have a definition in the guide!

Did you read the part of the form to which those instructions apply? Those checkboxes are part of the FATCA Status section. Isn't it clear that you are to look at the FATCA regs for additional definitions?

Re: Direct File won't happen in 2026, IRS tells states

#274

Post by maximinus_thrax »

drysine wrote: post #266
Dylan16807 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you have me really curious. When did "that time" start, and when did it end?

Well, in the 90s there was almost total adoration of the US in Russia and America meant only one thing - the US. Decade later the US lost most of its soft power due to the abuse of its dominant military and economic position in the world and then lost its dominant position too with the rise of the economies around the world. People now see the US as a strong state on the lands of native Americans on the continent cal…

Interesting perspective. In contrast, people see Russia as a miserable shithole just like they did in the 90s and generally throughout history. Basically both Europe's and Asia's backwater at the same time, which is remarkable.

Re: Direct File won't happen in 2026, IRS tells states

#275

Post by fragmede »

vel0city wrote: post #264
fragmede wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the US knows that you've had a qualifying event, they're just being stubborn.

The federal government doesn't always know if you've had a child or if you've died. Not even specifically the IRS, but its possible for you to have a child and never involve any organization that reports to the federal government.

It is absolutely possible, just as there are tons of other exceptions that Direct File wouldn't cover. The point is that there's a golden happy path that many people trot along where things could just be easy.

Re: Direct File won't happen in 2026, IRS tells states

#276

Post by mindslight »

nerdponx wrote: post #260
mindslight wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that Citizens United directly derives from a few straightforward concepts that are much more entrenched. The summary that "corporations are people" is kind of a misframing that makes you think the decision could have easily gone the other way, but that refrain is actually disempowering because there isn't much that could be changed at this level of abstraction. This is a better exploration of what need…

I'm nothing close to a scholar on the topic, but that CAP article does not at all make it sound like Citizens United was inevitable. It does make it clear that the ruling builds on other old and bad rulings, but it's still quite a leap.

It made it to the Supreme Council, so obviously there were good arguments on both sides and it could have been decided the other way. But fundamentally the rationalization of how it was decided is rooted in this deep seated assertion that people working for companies are doing so personally-voluntarily, ultimately stemming from the US's broken legal conception of rights in terms of a "negative" framing. While it would be great to reframe individual liberties in a positive sense so conflicts could be weighed equitably, I don't see that happening any time soon. Hence, focusing on regulating the government-created liability-limiting legal structures that encourage such scale in the first place.

Re: Direct File won't happen in 2026, IRS tells states

#277

Post by nerdponx »

mindslight wrote: post #276
nerdponx wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm nothing close to a scholar on the topic, but that CAP article does not at all make it sound like Citizens United was inevitable. It does make it clear that the ruling builds on other old and bad rulings, but it's still quite a leap.

It made it to the Supreme Council, so obviously there were good arguments on both sides and it could have been decided the other way. But fundamentally the rationalization of how it was decided is rooted in this deep seated assertion that people working for companies are doing so personally-voluntarily, ultimately stemming from the US's broken legal conception of rights in terms of a "negative" framing. While it woul…

Yeah but again, none of that is inevitable, it's merely convenient. We have seen justices go through astounding contortions of logic to design a case along certain ideological lines, many times. The availability of a chain of reasoning does not mean that the decision had to be decided the way it was decided.

Re: Direct File won't happen in 2026, IRS tells states

#278

Post by mindslight »

nerdponx wrote: post #277
mindslight wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It made it to the Supreme Council, so obviously there were good arguments on both sides and it could have been decided the other way. But fundamentally the rationalization of how it was decided is rooted in this deep seated assertion that people working for companies are doing so personally-voluntarily, ultimately stemming from the US's broken legal conception of rights in terms of a "negative" framing. While it woul…

Yeah but again, none of that is inevitable, it's merely convenient. We have seen justices go through astounding contortions of logic to design a case along certain ideological lines, many times. The availability of a chain of reasoning does not mean that the decision had to be decided the way it was decided.

Sure, none of that is inevitable. But for example the Constitutional framing in terms of negative rights is pretty deeply entrenched.

Re: Direct File won't happen in 2026, IRS tells states

#279

Post by andrewf »

Thorrez wrote: post #268
andrewf wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Morgan Stanley at Work seems to track wash sales. Last year I had two vests in May, one week apart. I'd instructed the brokerage to sell some of those shares on vest. On the first date, I experienced a capital loss (less than $20), due to price movement between the RSU vesting and the broker selling the resulting stock. This was reported on the 1099B as a disallowed wash sale due to my acquisition of more stock with…

Huh, very interesting. I wonder why Schwab doesn't do that.

I'm just happy that, after years of not doing so, MS started correctly reporting the cost basis of vested RSUs on the 1099. (It should be the same as the amount reported as W-2 income).

I definitely feel the RSU grantors are the customer here, not recipients like you or I.

Re: Direct File won't happen in 2026, IRS tells states

#280

Post by BrandoElFollito »

Amezarak wrote: post #247
dpark wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

25% of returns include the child tax credit and 16% include the earned income tax credit. These aren’t wealthy people filing with CPAs. These are lower income folks who specifically benefited from the IRS direct file program. Again, you seem to simultaneously believe that nearly everyone has trivial taxes to file while believing that the government cannot reasonably support free direct filing for these people. I have…

Credits are applied after you take the standard deduction. You subtract the standard deduction, figure out your taxable income, then subtract credits and taxes already paid. > These aren’t wealthy people filing with CPAs. These are lower income folks who specifically benefited from the IRS direct file program. Lower income people were not using IRS direct file. That’s would be the economically rational thing to do, b…

I do not even understand the terms you are using. In France (and other EU countries), "figuring out taxable income", "standard deduction", "subtracting credits", etc. are not your concerns.

The web page has all this information, you say OK and you are done. There is not a single "figuring out" you need to do.

This is, of course, the case for 95% of the population. You can be in the 5% where your tax filing becomes very complicated. In that case, though, you give this to a CPA and the cost of this service is zero compared to the amount of euros you deal with.

Post reply on HN