It didnt happen because Intuit lobbied against it like their business model was in existential crisis. The canary is that inappropriate power imbalances will ruin even the most hard one feats of human collaboration and effort. Its like learning about why jaywalking became a crime, or why recycling is a consumer’s respobsibility. Edit: So I'm about as original as a model can be as I went to go fact check myself and I basically cliff noted an AI summary for yall pre-gen.
I doubt this is the reason. In this particular case, it's more likely that a company such as Turbotax paid a sufficient sum of money to the President or one of his family members in exchange for this consideration.
Congress authorized a study, not a full blown system, or even a working prototype. No taxpayers should have ever been allowed to use it to file a tax return.
Despite Congress appropriating only $15M to do the study, the program managed to blow through at least $41M, likely more.[1] This included advertising costs in some states to encourage taxpayers to use the system.
This would be like your boss asking you to send him an email about the pros and cons of adding a feature, and you going and implementing the feature, pushing it to production, and then asking customers for feedback on it.
Whether or not the feature was a success is 100% irrelevant. That’s not how things should be done. We are a nation of laws, and even if the program was a smashing success, there needs to be accountability.
> No taxpayers should have ever been allowed to use it to file a tax return.
I see why blowing too much money on the study is a problem. Though this needs to be compared against the norms around this kind of thing. If we wanted these limits to be strict, we would make it actually impossible to spend more.
But I do not understand why creating a system and letting people use it would be a problem.
"We believe the best way to get this information would be to build a prototype and see how popular it will be" makes perfect sense to me.
> this needs to be compared against the norms around this kind of thing
Because other government programs waste money, it must be okay that this one did too?
Congress put $15M in the Inflation Reduction Act for the purpose of a study. If they wanted to spend $41M or $400M, don't you think they would have written that number into the law instead?
> But I do not understand why creating a system and letting people use it would be a problem
I don't know how to say this in any other way: it's because it was not authorized by law. That reason alone is sufficient.
This attitude of "well it was for a good cause, I suppose we can just ignore the law in this instance" is the root of many of our problems in this country. At its root it's really just "the ends justify the means" thinking.
Today it may be something you support. But tomorrow it's deportations or illegal recess appointments or unlawful searches and seizures. When you allow certain laws to be enforced and others to be ignored you set the stage for tyranny.
In many ways we are reaping the harvest of this lax attitude toward how laws are executed in this country. I hope this program serves as an object lesson in why complying with the law may seem tedious but is actually the bedrock of our constitutional order.
> Because other government programs waste money, it must be okay that this one did too?
No, but it's unfair to single out one program when they all do that.
> This attitude of "well it was for a good cause [...]"
That is not my argument. I don't see why a study cannot include a product being built and used by the public. Unless there's a legal argument where "study" is a specific legal term, not "we'll do things to learn about this topic".
Anyone wheeling and dealing along in the shadows between "politics" and "deliverable, functioning product" should read it. Or, I guess, paste the link into Claude or ChatGPT and ask it to summarize for them, lessons learned in bullet points and how it could apply to $their_job.
But I'm generally a weirdo who finds these kinds of reports fascinating, so don't purely go on my recommendation.
Eh, government should not be in the business of maintaining digital infrastructure, regardless of how capable it might be. As much of it as possible should be contracted out to 3rd parties.
I was surprised how much I enjoyed reading this. Although it's necessarily opinionate d(the lead author was part of the Direct file team) it comes off as very even-handed, giving equal consideration to successes and failures, and addressing the partisan political environment in factual terms.
It's unusually well-written, providing lots of key details or dropping in relevant context without ever losing sight of the big picture and the looming deadlines. I expected to just read the executive summary and then skim the rest, but it held my attention the whole way through.
Very basic analysis by da bot says it costs the government roughly 226$ per filing vs a private company 40$.
Would love to hear the opposite argument but the point I first saw online is saying the same, that it cost more tax payer money to run than it saved those tax payers.
Scale problem? Open to hearing the opposite argument.
I was not a fan of Direct File (I think it could have been much better!) but it was objectively in the success bucket:
- ~$50M all-in to build which sounds egregious but is small for a government project
- mostly good outcomes
- ~4y to pilot which also sounds egregious for a single moderate-complexity web app but again is practically lightspeed for a government project
People blame it getting shuttered on Trump but this is both a misread and a fundamental misunderstanding of how the government operates. The entire federal government is deliberately paced and primarily driven by a combination of politicals, regulation, budget, Congressional policymaking, and program staffing. The hammer on this was always going to fall,
[1] Congress has maintained a "buy over build" policy since literally the Cold War. Ironically the first policy here (1965) was to buy computers from ADP instead of custom-building them. The most impactful "buy commercial" policy (1996) was also IT focused. This was literally codified in several parts of the FAR, and if we're going to be blaming admins, the Trump admin has actually weakened the FAR with the RFO and would be on the other side of this issue.
[2] This policy is also the foundation upon which IT contractors like Palantir are built, if you've ever wondered "wtf do they do" they are a commercial contractor that builds custom software for government. So agencies get their custom stuff, Congress is happy they bought commercial, and the only loser is the taxpayer who overpaid a factor of 3-5x. To their credit, Palantir is a huge improvement on the status quo, because they charge by use cases and outcomes, whereas traditional SI's operate on a staffing model and a combination of high wrap rates and perverse incentives with billable hours creates horrible outcomes and ballooning costs. Anyways, there are a lot of commercial vendors that this work "could have" gone to and didn't. It would also have been really easy for them to shop this out because this was shaped really well for GSA MAS or STARS III.
[3] When you build things internally with e.g. 18F, one agency is typically the "customer" and pays the other agency (afaik 18F program is nested under the White House). So this really sucks when they walk away; 18F earned a reputation for building things through pilot, blogging about it, puffing their cheeks in the media, sending a bill to the agency, and then running off to the next shiny thing as engineers tend to do. As an agency you save a bit of money initially but now you are left with something nobody knows how to maintain, you have to hire contractors to do it, which by nature has to be a staffing contract, and then the wrap rate alone wrecks you. This happens all the time with commercial vendors, usually when they are outsized or don't get renewed, but obviously upsetting when it happens internally.
[4] The author of this piece was part of the team and so as you'd expect this piece is exceptionally biased. The reality is that the IRS self-assessed the maintenance as low and everybody who reports on this treats this as fact when it was not a GAO estimate, which is what carries any actual weight, it was internal IRS estimates and a single independent that mainly assessed call center volume not the actual system. Not only does their reputation precede them here, but their own spend on buildout (~$30M on contractors to help) contradicts the low maintenance narrative. We may never see a GAO estimate here, but the contract would almost certainly go out to TrussWorks, all government contracting data is public and you can look up for yourself how much TrussWorks typically charges the IRS whether directly or thru ATI's vehicles as subawards.
I think this is well said but also would have appreciated if you disclosed that you are a government vendor and are susceptible to your own biases. Would be only reasonable given that you call the author out on this. But the difference is she actually discloses her interest.
The biggest issue with Direct File is the conflict of interest created by having the government who benefits from your tax payment also prepare the return for you.
Given the massive amount of IRS shenanigans over the years, it is easy to imagine certain groups unfavored by the government conveniently being led to file returns that cause them to miss out on subsidies they are actually eligible for, or to pay higher taxes based on filing their return in correct but unfavorable ways resulting in higher tax payments than necessary.
This risk is particularly high given that the program was intended for and marketed to low income filers who typically rely on their tax preparer as an advocate to ensure their tax payment is as low as legally possible.
As other comments have mentioned, the program also exceeded statutory authority. Congress authorized the IRS to study a direct file system, not implement one on a permanent basis. It is a good thing when our government is restrained after it oversteps legal boundaries.
This is especially true in the case of this program because it was being intentionally implemented on a massive scale in order to make it politically unpopular to shut down. A program that allows 10% of all tax payers in 25 states is obviously much more than a study.
They lost 18 months in decision-making, compressing their development timeline.
I am not seeing it happen yet but I wonder if this will be the main AI SDLC improvement: you can analyze a ton of docs, build prototypes smoothing the decisions for non-technical stakeholders, and compress development so much that it might actually absorb all the other inefficiencies.
Just an aside on the design rather than the content:
I was wondering for a while about the greenish and yellow bars on the margins of the page, but I'm pretty sure that those are padding to make the document work well on both US letter paper and A4 at the same time! The text area is A4 proportions, so if it were printed, zoomed to size on that paper, the sidebars would simply disappear.
No doubt this is a common technique that I'm just noticing for the first time.
I never would have thought that a irs software would be called direct fire. What about indirect fire? I think of direct and indirect fire in context of artillery
27 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 6.4 ms ] threadDespite Congress appropriating only $15M to do the study, the program managed to blow through at least $41M, likely more.[1] This included advertising costs in some states to encourage taxpayers to use the system.
This would be like your boss asking you to send him an email about the pros and cons of adding a feature, and you going and implementing the feature, pushing it to production, and then asking customers for feedback on it.
Whether or not the feature was a success is 100% irrelevant. That’s not how things should be done. We are a nation of laws, and even if the program was a smashing success, there needs to be accountability.
1. https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/Report-Replacemen...
I see why blowing too much money on the study is a problem. Though this needs to be compared against the norms around this kind of thing. If we wanted these limits to be strict, we would make it actually impossible to spend more.
But I do not understand why creating a system and letting people use it would be a problem.
"We believe the best way to get this information would be to build a prototype and see how popular it will be" makes perfect sense to me.
Because other government programs waste money, it must be okay that this one did too?
Congress put $15M in the Inflation Reduction Act for the purpose of a study. If they wanted to spend $41M or $400M, don't you think they would have written that number into the law instead?
> But I do not understand why creating a system and letting people use it would be a problem
I don't know how to say this in any other way: it's because it was not authorized by law. That reason alone is sufficient.
This attitude of "well it was for a good cause, I suppose we can just ignore the law in this instance" is the root of many of our problems in this country. At its root it's really just "the ends justify the means" thinking.
Today it may be something you support. But tomorrow it's deportations or illegal recess appointments or unlawful searches and seizures. When you allow certain laws to be enforced and others to be ignored you set the stage for tyranny.
In many ways we are reaping the harvest of this lax attitude toward how laws are executed in this country. I hope this program serves as an object lesson in why complying with the law may seem tedious but is actually the bedrock of our constitutional order.
No, but it's unfair to single out one program when they all do that.
> This attitude of "well it was for a good cause [...]"
That is not my argument. I don't see why a study cannot include a product being built and used by the public. Unless there's a legal argument where "study" is a specific legal term, not "we'll do things to learn about this topic".
Anyone wheeling and dealing along in the shadows between "politics" and "deliverable, functioning product" should read it. Or, I guess, paste the link into Claude or ChatGPT and ask it to summarize for them, lessons learned in bullet points and how it could apply to $their_job.
But I'm generally a weirdo who finds these kinds of reports fascinating, so don't purely go on my recommendation.
It's unusually well-written, providing lots of key details or dropping in relevant context without ever losing sight of the big picture and the looming deadlines. I expected to just read the executive summary and then skim the rest, but it held my attention the whole way through.
Would love to hear the opposite argument but the point I first saw online is saying the same, that it cost more tax payer money to run than it saved those tax payers.
Scale problem? Open to hearing the opposite argument.
- ~$50M all-in to build which sounds egregious but is small for a government project
- mostly good outcomes
- ~4y to pilot which also sounds egregious for a single moderate-complexity web app but again is practically lightspeed for a government project
People blame it getting shuttered on Trump but this is both a misread and a fundamental misunderstanding of how the government operates. The entire federal government is deliberately paced and primarily driven by a combination of politicals, regulation, budget, Congressional policymaking, and program staffing. The hammer on this was always going to fall,
[1] Congress has maintained a "buy over build" policy since literally the Cold War. Ironically the first policy here (1965) was to buy computers from ADP instead of custom-building them. The most impactful "buy commercial" policy (1996) was also IT focused. This was literally codified in several parts of the FAR, and if we're going to be blaming admins, the Trump admin has actually weakened the FAR with the RFO and would be on the other side of this issue.
[2] This policy is also the foundation upon which IT contractors like Palantir are built, if you've ever wondered "wtf do they do" they are a commercial contractor that builds custom software for government. So agencies get their custom stuff, Congress is happy they bought commercial, and the only loser is the taxpayer who overpaid a factor of 3-5x. To their credit, Palantir is a huge improvement on the status quo, because they charge by use cases and outcomes, whereas traditional SI's operate on a staffing model and a combination of high wrap rates and perverse incentives with billable hours creates horrible outcomes and ballooning costs. Anyways, there are a lot of commercial vendors that this work "could have" gone to and didn't. It would also have been really easy for them to shop this out because this was shaped really well for GSA MAS or STARS III.
[3] When you build things internally with e.g. 18F, one agency is typically the "customer" and pays the other agency (afaik 18F program is nested under the White House). So this really sucks when they walk away; 18F earned a reputation for building things through pilot, blogging about it, puffing their cheeks in the media, sending a bill to the agency, and then running off to the next shiny thing as engineers tend to do. As an agency you save a bit of money initially but now you are left with something nobody knows how to maintain, you have to hire contractors to do it, which by nature has to be a staffing contract, and then the wrap rate alone wrecks you. This happens all the time with commercial vendors, usually when they are outsized or don't get renewed, but obviously upsetting when it happens internally.
[4] The author of this piece was part of the team and so as you'd expect this piece is exceptionally biased. The reality is that the IRS self-assessed the maintenance as low and everybody who reports on this treats this as fact when it was not a GAO estimate, which is what carries any actual weight, it was internal IRS estimates and a single independent that mainly assessed call center volume not the actual system. Not only does their reputation precede them here, but their own spend on buildout (~$30M on contractors to help) contradicts the low maintenance narrative. We may never see a GAO estimate here, but the contract would almost certainly go out to TrussWorks, all government contracting data is public and you can look up for yourself how much TrussWorks typically charges the IRS whether directly or thru ATI's vehicles as subawards.
Given the massive amount of IRS shenanigans over the years, it is easy to imagine certain groups unfavored by the government conveniently being led to file returns that cause them to miss out on subsidies they are actually eligible for, or to pay higher taxes based on filing their return in correct but unfavorable ways resulting in higher tax payments than necessary.
This risk is particularly high given that the program was intended for and marketed to low income filers who typically rely on their tax preparer as an advocate to ensure their tax payment is as low as legally possible.
As other comments have mentioned, the program also exceeded statutory authority. Congress authorized the IRS to study a direct file system, not implement one on a permanent basis. It is a good thing when our government is restrained after it oversteps legal boundaries.
This is especially true in the case of this program because it was being intentionally implemented on a massive scale in order to make it politically unpopular to shut down. A program that allows 10% of all tax payers in 25 states is obviously much more than a study.
I am not seeing it happen yet but I wonder if this will be the main AI SDLC improvement: you can analyze a ton of docs, build prototypes smoothing the decisions for non-technical stakeholders, and compress development so much that it might actually absorb all the other inefficiencies.
I was wondering for a while about the greenish and yellow bars on the margins of the page, but I'm pretty sure that those are padding to make the document work well on both US letter paper and A4 at the same time! The text area is A4 proportions, so if it were printed, zoomed to size on that paper, the sidebars would simply disappear.
No doubt this is a common technique that I'm just noticing for the first time.