Open Source Federal Income Tax Software 227
niiler writes "There is finally a usable US federal income tax program for Linux users who don't wish to file online. TaxGeek is a Mozilla-based US income tax program that includes Form 1040, Schedules A, B, C, C-EZ, D, E, K-1 (1065), SE (Short and Long), W2, Forms 8880, 8853, 8863, 8812, 5695, 4952,3903, 2106, 2106ez, 2441 with access to most other files as PDFs. It is intended to be extensible so that developers can easily add other forms that are needed without affecting the existing file formats and stored data. TaxGeek will also create PDFs of all the supported forms so that you can print them and send them in to the IRS. (PDF creation support requires the installation of Perl PDF::Reuse.) At this point, e-filing is not supported."
When we talk open source... (Score:3, Insightful)
Using an open source kit gives us the ability to find whomever we need to fix it, and not the ordained "fixer". This isnt a slam at MS, but instead is towards the whole proprietary software community.
However, when it comes to taxes and associated penalties, having a company to blame is one of the best recourses one can have. Of course, the IRS can do whatever the hell they want for taxes, but suing the preparer for incompetence is of the utmost importance. Lesser yet, are companies who offer guarantees on their fitness of returns.
I wouldnt trade the ability to point fingers for "free software".
Re:Nice Disclaimer (Score:5, Insightful)
ABSOLUTELY NO GUARANTEES ARE OFFERED. If you have a ton of money riding on finding all the right loopholes and getting everything 100% perfect, buy a tax program or use an accountant.
Ask your accountant for his guarantee. I don't think it is any different. But the benefit in seeing an accountant is they have memorized the loop holes you can tap into.
But at least with this event, those commercial tax packages better get a Linux version or lose market share. Not everyones tax is complicated enough to need an accountant.
Re:Nice Disclaimer (Score:4, Insightful)
For those of us who still do our taxes by hand, it wouldn't really be any riskier, and might not be any more trouble, just to run through the software once, check it by hand, and send in bug reports.
Not mentioned in the summary: this is free software (under the GPL).
Re:Nice Disclaimer (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, that's the same guarantee you you get with a commercial tax program or from an accountant. The difference is that the accountant, and to a lesser extent the commercial software, will probably do a better job. Probably. But if you miss out on big deductions you should have taken, or, even worse, if the program or accountant tells you to take some deductions that land you in hot water, it's all on you. Your taxes are your responsibility, period.
No Warranty (Score:4, Insightful)
no Warranty, and don't check the accuracy.
Well, guess what NEITHER DOES CLOSED SOURCE.
Your $49.99 QuickTax/EasyTax, whatever doesn't come with a warranty either, besides one on the MEDIA.
If it screws up, guess what, it's YOU who owes the IRS money. The developers are held harmless, because they are simple developers. They are not tax law experts.
Same thing happens when you take your taxes to H&R block. The best 'guarentee' they offer is your money back.
Now if you went to an accountant, or a CA, CCA, etc, They can be held partially accountable.
If you ask me, we need real engineers designing complex software like tax programs, not simple programmers or developers. Stand behind the work, and put your professional licence behind it.
Other wise, might as well use quicktax, and cross your fingers.
Re:A step in the right direction, I think. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nice Disclaimer (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Because... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You get to be the beta tester! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm just saying it's financially illiterate to claim you're saving money on your taxes while to get that savings you have to pay nearly 3 times what you're "saving" in interest to someone else.
Now, it's generally a sound idea use a mortgage to buy a house so you can build equity and have the house appreciate (and also to lock in a fixed payment level for your housing over a long period of time).
But it's a pretty dumb strategy to take out a 2nd mortgage at a higher and probably variable rate to finance your European vacation and and your new jet skis while claiming it's "okay" because you get to write off the interest from your taxes. You're paying 1000 to save 300. You're still net -700. Sure you have your vacation memories and some depreciated jet skis but it's not sound thinking.
The same financial illiteracy leads many to think they're winning some great coup against the government when they get a fat refund check every year. You then try to explain that that money was theirs all along and isn't a gift from the government - and that they've been loaning it to the government for free. Then you suggest they reduce their withholding so they get the money all year long instead of in a huge lump. The typical answer is: "Well, if I do that, I'll spend it all. I like getting a big lump all at once."
The first part of that is an admission of lack of any self control - a much bigger problem, really. They also don't understand that if they reduce their withholding and put the extra cash in a savings account or some other investment that they not only have access to the money all year long, they will get MORE money - and they can STILL get it in a lump sum if they want it - and MORE of it! Or for an even better return they can use the extra to pay down their credit cards. Or even their mortgage... but then they complain that they'll lose some of their mortgage interest deduction.?! Okay... that's true for this year, but they don't seem to understand or care that doing so means they can chop years off their mortgage that way.
I realize it's a systems kind of thing where people get the reward of bad decisions now but due to delays inherent in the system, they don't have to pay the consequences until later. At which point, too much time has passed and they don't truly associate the bad choices in the past with the bad consequences of the future.
So, a simple thing like adjusting your withholding can help quite a bit. I actually take it to the extreme. My salary is pretty much fixed over the course of a year. $1.00 that I earn in January is worth more, due to inflation, than $1.00 in the next December. So, at the beginning of the year, I claim 10 deductions and have virtually no tax money taken out. At the same time, I max out the money going into my 401K. Every couple of months, I adjust the numbers so that more goes into taxes and less goes into the 401K. Over the course of the year, I end up paying the same amount of money into my 401K and Taxes as if I had left them level. BUT, the extra money going into the 401K is earning money for me right away - and for more of the year. There's no penalty (interest paid or interest lost) by pushing the tax payments to the end of the year. I also end up nearly even on my taxes... I paid $70 to federal this year and got back $120 on my state - but money was in my 401K for a longer period of time.
Now if I were willing to accept more risk (of losing my job, mostly), I'd actually balance it so I owed $1000 on each of my taxes. Below that threshold, there is no penalty or interest. So essentially I would get a free loan of that $2000 from the point I accumulate that much tax-due until April 15th the next year.
Anyway, I've resorted to laughing at people who will refinance to have spending money and to "keep" their interest deduction or who prefer to let the government keep huge "lump sums" of money because they seem impossible to educate and get defensive about their poor decisions. Spitting would be going too far.