2 ms·
The software is was written in the 60s and patched, patched, patched... I knew someone who worked on it, he passed away in the late 90s. Plus tax laws change
by jmclnx 2y ago
The software is was written in the 60s and patched, patched, patched... I knew someone who worked on it, he passed away in the late 90s.
Plus tax laws change every year, in many cases causing massive changes. Every conversion failed because no one is left fully understands the whole system.
Plus for a conversion, you need a long quiet time, with the tax laws you never get that.
Not to mention, even with Biden's additional funding, which I am sure it will be cut, it is far from the amount needed for a successful project.
So here we are. I think some "modernization" has occurred, but the core system is still running some 60 year old software.
Note, I knew a lot of people who worked there prior to 2000, so maybe what I know is a bit out of date. But I doubt it since the attempts I have read about over the past 20 years did not succeed.
- AnthonyMouse 2y agoThe tax code is legislation and they're the government. Instead of trying to translate it from old COBOL spaghetti code, discard the existing code and implement a new system from the tax code. And while you're having a bunch of lawyers go through the tax code in order to do this, have them recommend simplifications to make it easier, so that instead writing new complicated software, you write new simpler tax laws.
- econ 2y agoEstonia
- hindsightbias 2y agoThe IMF and BMF aren’t just software. They’re the code in tax code. It’s the law, not the printed thing in a binder. If you have the gall to question IMF behavior vs printed tax code and write it up internally, you will get a reply from an tax code analyst in a couple of months from WV explaining why you’re wrong, selections from code, selections from IRS legal interpretations, applicable court cases past, present and pending. It’s all very polite, but you quickly realize they’re lawyers and you aren’t.