7 ms·

TurboTax Uses a “Military Discount” to Trick Troops into Paying to File Taxes

170 points by kaboro 7y ago

mrosett 7y ago
TurboTax is one of the most aggressive rent-seekers out there. I consider what they do to be so unethical that I try to avoid Intuit's other services even though they're very useful. (I also don't love how Intuit has done its best to run Mint into the ground after acquiring it.)
- MagicPropmaker 7y ago
  I switched from QuickBooks to Xero. If your business isn't that complicated it works well.
- bongobongo 7y ago
  Intuit is one of the largest players in San Diego's tech scene, but I will never, ever work there for precisely this reason, despite the fact that they are almost always hiring/recruiting and offer competitive compensation packages. The problem for me is that they appear to be total scumbags.
  - sharps_xp 7y ago
    what's the range you see for "competitive compensation"?
    - bongobongo 7y ago
      AFAIK a "senior" dev there can expect to make just shy of $150K, which is just about slightly above-average for SD for a large company (excluding the defense industry, which depresses the average, and there's a lot of it)
      - natrik 7y ago
        Many junior devs can have a starting salary of $120K-150K and senior starts at $200K+ imo for large companies
        bongobongo 7y ago
        Not in San Diego
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Just for reference, and since HN is famous for thinking that every software engineer makes at least $300K. https://swz.salary.com/SalaryWizard/Software-Engineer-V-Salary-Details-San-Diego-CA.aspx?&hdcbxbonuse=on&isshowpiechart=false&isshowjobchart=false&isshowsalarydetailcharts=true&isshownextsteps=true&isshowcompanyfct=true&isshowaboutyou=true https://swz.salary.com/SalaryWizard/Software-Engineer-V-Sala...
- pnutjam 7y ago
  I always thought the liberty tax places looked shady, but they have had a free no-income cap online filing system for at least 3 years. I've used it every year. They call it DIY tax, but the site is freetax.com.
User23 7y ago
This sounds like stupidity not malice. There’s clearly a usability issue when different UI flows charge the same person differently for the same service. Edit: that’s just it. I don’t believe there was a meeting where a PM sat down and said “muhaha let’s make our UI confusing to screw service members.” That’s ludicrous. What likely happened is substandard engineering practices created an overly complicated UI and then failed to correctly handle all cases due to poor coding.
- irq 7y ago
  This doesn’t pass the sniff test, given Intuit’s long history of anti-consumer practices.
- austincheney 7y ago
  I believe the appropriate term for such an experience is dark pattern. It takes extra effort to blame the user when the intention of the experience is deception (a lie). Evidence that the lie is intentional is this: To find TurboTax’s Free File landing page, service members typically have to go through the IRS website. TurboTax Military, by contrast, is promoted on the company’s home page and elsewhere. Starting through the Military landing page directs many users to paid products even when they are eligible to get the same service for no cost using the Free File edition. An Intuit press release this year announced “TurboTax Offers Free Filing for Military E1- E5” — but refers users to TurboTax Military and does not mention the actual Free File option. (E1-E5 refers to military pay grades.)
  - phjesusthatguy3 7y ago
    That's just a custom "fuck you" page for the military. Its the same process for every taxpayer.
- loco5niner 7y ago
  > “muhaha let’s make our UI confusing to screw service members.” That’s ludicrous. Considering this is Intuit, it does NOT sound ludicrous.
Yhippa 7y ago
Intuit has weaponized tax filing against the American taxpayer for great profit. Their lobbying efforts are very impressive.
- smacktoward 7y ago
  We can't blame this one on the icky lobbyists, though. It's pure exploitation of dark patterns, which means the people with responsibility here are people like HN readers -- PMs, designers and programmers, not lobbyists. (Heck, some of them may be HN readers.)
  - im_down_w_otp 7y ago
    Can't we though? Isn't Congress planning to permanently ban the IRS from providing online tax-prep services itself in an attempt to permanently entrench this pointless and corrosive marketplace?
    - pfranz 7y ago
      I'm happy for someone to correct me, but my understanding is in exchange for the IRS to work with these companies on their free service the IRS wouldn't /run/ a competing free service and the contract was renewed every couple years. The IRS could develop something, but couldn't launch it until the contract expires...which would take a few years, anyway. Those terms didn't seem that unreasonable to me.
      - inetknght 7y ago
        > Those terms didn't seem that unreasonable to me. You don't think it's unreasonable that the IRS is precluded from making better services available to American citizens?
        pfranz 7y ago
        ...in exchange for a partnership between private companies offering a free service. Other than the non-compete from the IRS, I'm not exactly sure what these private companies get out of it? If they're hiding access to their free filing, then its not to up-sell. In 2007, they stopped allowing things like loans against returns. Feel free to have a different opinion on this. The program has been around since 2001. This bill just extends the same program. The government hasn't historically had a great track record with developing web services. I see things getting better with things like the USDS, but that was only formed in 2014 and Congress keeps cutting back funding of the IRS. The current contract expires in 2020. I can't see why its a big deal to extend it. The specific language is “to not enter the tax preparation software and e-filing marketplace.” and my understanding is that it doesn't preclude development, just launching it. But I would love if the IRS would develop a first party solution.
LinuxBender 7y ago
Cheating service members can have consequences. We were TDY and put up in a hotel in Los Angeles, that was ripping off customers by removing placards that advised some local 7 digit numbers were now long distance. Both the hotel and the phone company were making extra money off this little scam. We advised the Area Defense Counsel of the practice and the military cancelled the contract with the entire hotel chain. The hotel chain never recovered from that loss. I presume something similar could be done here. i.e. contact the ADC for each branch and advise service members are being taken advantage of. The military could send out a memo globally suggesting how to file for free and to not use TurboTax.
- HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
  I sure hope so. This is not acceptable, especially when they're being paid by the taxpayers- so not only is Intuit dipping once, they're double-dipping. Why, oh why, do they deserve to exist anymore? This is not cool. Unfortunately, I expect that they'll get either nothing or some flavor of penalty that'll only momentarily stun them. Not to mention the fact that class-action lawsuits disproportionately help the lawyers get money out of it, either. Ugh.
  - YawningAngel 7y ago
    I use ArgoCD professionally and Quickbooks personally. Their stuff is pretty good. It's hard to blame them for participating in the tax return scam when everyone in their industry does it.
    - whenchamenia 7y ago
      No, it is not.
jwally 7y ago
Anecdote: My wife and I normally file with turbo-tax, and usually end up owing money to the government. This year was different, and we actually got money back. We have to pay to use turbo-tax (like 39.95 or whatever). When it was asking how we wanted to pay, there was an option where it could be taken out of our refund. We selected this; and were about to hit submit before we noticed that 39.95 figure twice. Turns out they were going to charge us 39.95 to use their product, and (I doubt accidentally) 39.95 to pay them out of our refund. We sprinted back, chose to pay with our card (which was free) and filed. I felt like I needed to shower after.
- catslaps 7y ago
  I had the same experience LAST year when I used them as well. It is no accident that the normal fee is the same as this surprise additional fee to pay them out of the refund. Deliberately meant to go under the customer's radar.
- tracker1 7y ago
  Noticed the same.. definitely intentionally misleading.
- starpilot 7y ago
  Fuck, really? I used that option, they nailed me. God damn.

170 points by kaboro 7y ago

TurboTax is one of the most aggressive rent-seekers out there. I consider what they do to be so unethical that I try to avoid Intuit's other services even though they're very useful. (I also don't love how Intuit has done its best to run Mint into the ground after acquiring it.)

MagicPropmaker 7y ago
I switched from QuickBooks to Xero. If your business isn't that complicated it works well.
bongobongo 7y ago
Intuit is one of the largest players in San Diego's tech scene, but I will never, ever work there for precisely this reason, despite the fact that they are almost always hiring/recruiting and offer competitive compensation packages. The problem for me is that they appear to be total scumbags.
- sharps_xp 7y ago
  what's the range you see for "competitive compensation"?
  - bongobongo 7y ago
    AFAIK a "senior" dev there can expect to make just shy of $150K, which is just about slightly above-average for SD for a large company (excluding the defense industry, which depresses the average, and there's a lot of it)
    - natrik 7y ago
      Many junior devs can have a starting salary of $120K-150K and senior starts at $200K+ imo for large companies
      - bongobongo 7y ago
        Not in San Diego
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Just for reference, and since HN is famous for thinking that every software engineer makes at least $300K. https://swz.salary.com/SalaryWizard/Software-Engineer-V-Salary-Details-San-Diego-CA.aspx?&hdcbxbonuse=on&isshowpiechart=false&isshowjobchart=false&isshowsalarydetailcharts=true&isshownextsteps=true&isshowcompanyfct=true&isshowaboutyou=true https://swz.salary.com/SalaryWizard/Software-Engineer-V-Sala...
pnutjam 7y ago
I always thought the liberty tax places looked shady, but they have had a free no-income cap online filing system for at least 3 years. I've used it every year. They call it DIY tax, but the site is freetax.com.

User23 7y ago

This sounds like stupidity not malice. There’s clearly a usability issue when different UI flows charge the same person differently for the same service. Edit: that’s just it. I don’t believe there was a meeting where a PM sat down and said “muhaha let’s make our UI confusing to screw service members.” That’s ludicrous. What likely happened is substandard engineering practices created an overly complicated UI and then failed to correctly handle all cases due to poor coding.

irq 7y ago
This doesn’t pass the sniff test, given Intuit’s long history of anti-consumer practices.
austincheney 7y ago
I believe the appropriate term for such an experience is dark pattern. It takes extra effort to blame the user when the intention of the experience is deception (a lie). Evidence that the lie is intentional is this: To find TurboTax’s Free File landing page, service members typically have to go through the IRS website. TurboTax Military, by contrast, is promoted on the company’s home page and elsewhere. Starting through the Military landing page directs many users to paid products even when they are eligible to get the same service for no cost using the Free File edition. An Intuit press release this year announced “TurboTax Offers Free Filing for Military E1- E5” — but refers users to TurboTax Military and does not mention the actual Free File option. (E1-E5 refers to military pay grades.)
- phjesusthatguy3 7y ago
  That's just a custom "fuck you" page for the military. Its the same process for every taxpayer.
loco5niner 7y ago
> “muhaha let’s make our UI confusing to screw service members.” That’s ludicrous. Considering this is Intuit, it does NOT sound ludicrous.

Yhippa 7y ago

Intuit has weaponized tax filing against the American taxpayer for great profit. Their lobbying efforts are very impressive.

smacktoward 7y ago
We can't blame this one on the icky lobbyists, though. It's pure exploitation of dark patterns, which means the people with responsibility here are people like HN readers -- PMs, designers and programmers, not lobbyists. (Heck, some of them may be HN readers.)
- im_down_w_otp 7y ago
  Can't we though? Isn't Congress planning to permanently ban the IRS from providing online tax-prep services itself in an attempt to permanently entrench this pointless and corrosive marketplace?
  - pfranz 7y ago
    I'm happy for someone to correct me, but my understanding is in exchange for the IRS to work with these companies on their free service the IRS wouldn't /run/ a competing free service and the contract was renewed every couple years. The IRS could develop something, but couldn't launch it until the contract expires...which would take a few years, anyway. Those terms didn't seem that unreasonable to me.
    - inetknght 7y ago
      > Those terms didn't seem that unreasonable to me. You don't think it's unreasonable that the IRS is precluded from making better services available to American citizens?
      - pfranz 7y ago
        ...in exchange for a partnership between private companies offering a free service. Other than the non-compete from the IRS, I'm not exactly sure what these private companies get out of it? If they're hiding access to their free filing, then its not to up-sell. In 2007, they stopped allowing things like loans against returns. Feel free to have a different opinion on this. The program has been around since 2001. This bill just extends the same program. The government hasn't historically had a great track record with developing web services. I see things getting better with things like the USDS, but that was only formed in 2014 and Congress keeps cutting back funding of the IRS. The current contract expires in 2020. I can't see why its a big deal to extend it. The specific language is “to not enter the tax preparation software and e-filing marketplace.” and my understanding is that it doesn't preclude development, just launching it. But I would love if the IRS would develop a first party solution.

LinuxBender 7y ago

Cheating service members can have consequences. We were TDY and put up in a hotel in Los Angeles, that was ripping off customers by removing placards that advised some local 7 digit numbers were now long distance. Both the hotel and the phone company were making extra money off this little scam. We advised the Area Defense Counsel of the practice and the military cancelled the contract with the entire hotel chain. The hotel chain never recovered from that loss. I presume something similar could be done here. i.e. contact the ADC for each branch and advise service members are being taken advantage of. The military could send out a memo globally suggesting how to file for free and to not use TurboTax.

HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
I sure hope so. This is not acceptable, especially when they're being paid by the taxpayers- so not only is Intuit dipping once, they're double-dipping. Why, oh why, do they deserve to exist anymore? This is not cool. Unfortunately, I expect that they'll get either nothing or some flavor of penalty that'll only momentarily stun them. Not to mention the fact that class-action lawsuits disproportionately help the lawyers get money out of it, either. Ugh.
- YawningAngel 7y ago
  I use ArgoCD professionally and Quickbooks personally. Their stuff is pretty good. It's hard to blame them for participating in the tax return scam when everyone in their industry does it.
  - whenchamenia 7y ago
    No, it is not.

jwally 7y ago

Anecdote: My wife and I normally file with turbo-tax, and usually end up owing money to the government. This year was different, and we actually got money back. We have to pay to use turbo-tax (like 39.95 or whatever). When it was asking how we wanted to pay, there was an option where it could be taken out of our refund. We selected this; and were about to hit submit before we noticed that 39.95 figure twice. Turns out they were going to charge us 39.95 to use their product, and (I doubt accidentally) 39.95 to pay them out of our refund. We sprinted back, chose to pay with our card (which was free) and filed. I felt like I needed to shower after.

catslaps 7y ago
I had the same experience LAST year when I used them as well. It is no accident that the normal fee is the same as this surprise additional fee to pay them out of the refund. Deliberately meant to go under the customer's radar.
tracker1 7y ago
Noticed the same.. definitely intentionally misleading.
starpilot 7y ago
Fuck, really? I used that option, they nailed me. God damn.