EFILE authorization form 8879, FAX OK?

[oceanlovin'ea]

Ole Days

When I started working for HRB in the mid-80's, we were writing returns manually. Done in pencil, checked by someone else in the office, sent to checking department to be rechecked, then copied and sent back to office for the client to pick up. If you made a mistake, you got it back from checking department with a blue (I think) slip on it and you had to go through the process again.

But the one advantage was that you knew what you were doing, you had to follow the figures from one form to another. You could remember figures better because you were actually using the figures.

Sometimes now I feel like a data entry person. But I probably wouldn't want to go back to the "ole days". But I do feel like I learned more starting then.

I also agree that knowing what the program wants you to put in sometimes is the big problem. I have actually worked something out on a paper form so I would know that the computer was right.

Now we can do so much more.......like spending time on this board.

Linda F

[John of PA]

That's Great

That's great Linda,
thank to compters, we are saving time, which we are now spending on this message board. I like that.

[Koss]

Wagging the Dog

When I started working for HRB in the mid-80's, we were writing returns manually... <snip>

But the one advantage was that you knew what you were doing, you had to follow the figures from one form to another. You could remember figures better because you were actually using the figures.

Sometimes now I feel like a data entry person. But I probably wouldn't want to go back to the "ole days". But I do feel like I learned more starting then.

I also agree that knowing what the program wants you to put in sometimes is the big problem. I have actually worked something out on a paper form so I would know that the computer was right.

<snip>

Linda F

I've expressed my thoughts on this before; Linda's comments merely reinforce my conviction. I did tax returns by hand for about six years. Computers have revolutionized what we do. But they are also our greatest weakness. Allowing the program to shape your thinking can lead to serious errors. I have encountered numerous cases this year, on many different forms, where the software really was wrong. In other cases, it is operator error. The old cliche is true: Garbage in, garbage out.

The greatest weakness that I see in those who are relatively new to this business is that they often do not recognize that the computer program does not make the rules and implement the tax law; rather, it is the other way around. The tax law and associated regulations drive the algorithms that are used to write the software. If a thorough analysis reveals a conflict between manual return preparation and the software, the manual return results will prevail. Many people have difficulty accepting the idea that the computer can be wrong, because we rely on the computer to catch our mistakes.

This phenomenon is not by any means unique to tax preparation. For many years I worked in the billing department for a major telecommunications company. What I am about to describe is but one example, and it is the tip of the iceberg. Certain transactions performed by customer service reps on wireless phone accounts were triggering a contract extension in the billing system that wasn't really required. Over time, it became a "known issue," and finally the IT guys fixed it. But it took a long time.

And no matter how many communications were sent out, many, many customer service reps, and even some supervisors, continued to believe that these transactions required the customer to extend their service contract. Reading the memos failed to convince them otherwise. The memo conflicted with the user experience in the computer program, and many people came to the conclusion that the memo was wrong, and the computer was right. Many times I heard people say, "the system requires a contract renewal when you do this." People think the computer program is "the system," but it isn't. The program is, or rather should be, a reflection of the system. The billing system for a phone company does not dictate company policy; it is exactly the other way around. The policy drives the algorithms used by the billing system. And this is equally true of income taxes.

The danger is that the policy, or law, or system, becomes so complex that no one understands it in its totality, and the documents and algorithms that truly define the policy become inaccessible, incomprehensible, or simply too voluminous. And when we cannot read or cannot interpret the policy itself, we begin to rely on the software. We look at the computer program's output, and engage in a form of reverse engineering. With the true underlying policy unavailable, we look at the software's results, and extrapolate the policy. And the tail begins to wag the dog. The computer program has effectively become the policy. This is an extremely unhealthy and dangerous phenomenon. But it occurs to some degree in all large organizations that use computer technology.

Modifying a quotation that is well known in some psychology and linguistics circles, an anonymous magazine editor once wrote:

The map is not the territory, and the instruction book is not the process.

Burton M. Koss
koss@usakoss.net

https://www.usakoss.net

[Black Bart]

Wagging the dog...and...Estimates: A dying art?

Computers have revolutionized what we do. But they are also our greatest weakness.

Many people have difficulty accepting the idea that the computer can be wrong, because we rely on the computer to catch our mistakes.

People think the computer program is "the system," but it isn't. The program is, or rather should be, a reflection of the system.

The danger is that the policy, or law, or system, becomes so complex that no one understands it in its totality, and the documents and algorithms that truly define the policy become inaccessible, incomprehensible, or simply too voluminous. And when we cannot read or cannot interpret the policy itself, we begin to rely on the software.

And the tail begins to wag the dog. The computer program has effectively become the policy.

Burton M. Koss

You're right. I once asked a colleague why he took such-and-such a stance on a tax question. He said "I don't know--that's what the computer says it should be." And when computers first debuted, a comedic tax seminar speaker held up a blue 1040 and said "For those of you on computer--this is a 1040."

When I began (seventies) we did everything by hand and gave everybody (except shoebox cases) estimates of tax due. We still do--but it's much harder because of refundable CTC, taxable SS, education credits, etc. When a new credit arrives, we try to dope out the formula--Linda's right--doing it manually gives you an understanding of the process that you can't get by punching the keys.

A client said something last year that made me wonder how many of us still give tax due estimates. He'd been in before and we'd done his taxes. This time he brought a friend and asked for an estimate. We gave it. He turned to the friend and said, "See? I told you they could do it."

[oceanlovin'ea]

Support

I was almost afraid when I posted my other post about "writing" returns that most would think I was crazy. I'm glad to see that there are some others that understand what I was saying.

I wouldn't go back to doing it that way. I'm glad I have a good program to use for preparing tax returns now. But I am glad I started doing taxes when I did.

Thanks for the backup.

Linda F

[Black Bart]

You're welcome.

I was almost afraid when I posted my other post about "writing" returns that most would think I was crazy. I'm glad to see that there are some others that understand what I was saying.

I wouldn't go back to doing it that way. I'm glad I have a good program to use for preparing tax returns now. But I am glad I started doing taxes when I did.

Thanks for the backup.

Linda F

Actually, I think there are quite a few members of the "over-the-hill" gang (including me) on this board. But, even though older, many of them are very smart and able tax professionals (not necessarily including me).

Funny, when you get older you kinda tend to think something like "Well, he/she is just a young twerp--what can they know?" But, then, the other day when Koss said he was only 37 I was astounded. I thought anybody that knowledgeable had to be an older guy--also GGD is a smart gal--just goes to show, I guess, that we like to cling to our stereotypes--and then somebody bursts our bubble. So, evidently, there's a lot of bright young people here too.