Connect with us

Personal Finance

A sports stadium boom is coming to America. Is that a good thing?

Published

on

In recent months, a tug of war over professional sports unleashed untold sturm und/or drang upon our nation’s capital. But the end result of all that sound and fury?

(Well, nothing but the transfer of a half-billion dollars from D.C. to a dot-com billionaire. But more on that later.)

After all that noise, Washington’s Capitals and Wizards will stay put in Capital One Arena in downtown D.C. Owner Ted Leonsis will not move to a spanking new facility in Northern Virginia.

That got us thinking: Is it just us, or are fewer stadiums and arenas getting built these days?

We ran the numbers. Only six major sports facilities opened in North America from 2020 to 2024 (including the $1.15 billion renovation of Seattle Kraken’s Climate Pledge Arena, the one case of an overhaul so complete we counted it as a new facility). It’s perhaps the steepest stadium slump we’ve seen since the baby boom.


Construction of stadiums and

arenas hit lull after 2005

Sports facilities built in five-year periods

Source: Bradbury, Coates and Humphreys (2022)

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST

Stadium and arena construction hit lull after 2005

Sports facilities built in five-year periods

Source: Bradbury, Coates and Humphreys (2022)

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST

Construction of stadiums and arenas

hit lull after 2005

Sports facilities built in five-year periods

Source: Bradbury, Coates and Humphreys (2022)

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST

What gives? Do sports teams already have all the space they need? Have taxpayers grown reluctant to finance these monuments to the vanity of billionaire owners?

We called economist J.C. Bradbury, who helped build a database of all 220 major sports facilities constructed in North America since 1909, updating the data that Judith Grant Long gathered for her 2014 book. Billionaire owners aren’t always forthcoming, so they often base their work on “ballpark” estimates from press accounts and other public sources.

“It’s purposefully, in my opinion, obfuscated from taxpayers,” especially in more controversial cases, said Long, a professor of sports management and urban planning at the University of Michigan who first assembled the data for her PhD dissertation in the early 2000s.

Bradbury, who updated Long’s data from his perch at Kennesaw State University, outlined two great waves of sports construction. The first hit in the 1960s as television brought sports to the masses, revenue rose and newly expansionist leagues sprawled across the country.

Those first “super stadiums” were cavernous concrete buckets meant be filled with multiple sports and events — think Houston’s Astrodome or RFK Stadium in the District. Many were built with public funds and envisioned as public resources.

The second wave hit in the late 1990s: An incredible 56 facilities rose from 1995 to 2004 as owners realized they could tap into fresh fire hydrants of money by swapping their generic sports buckets — most still perfectly functional — for venues tailored to specific sports and larded with restaurants, clubs and luxury suites.

The cost to build those sports spaces more than doubled during that second surge of construction even after adjusting for inflation, from a median of $190 million in the 1980s to around $480 million in the 2000s.


Sports facility costs grew

faster than public subsidies

Median cost for stadiums opening each

decade, in 2020 dollars

Source: Bradbury, Coates and Humphreys (2022)

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/ THE WASHINGTON POST

Sports facility costs grew faster than public subsidies

Median cost for stadiums opening each decade, in 2020 dollars

Source: Bradbury, Coates and Humphreys (2022)

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/ THE WASHINGTON POST

Sports facility costs grew faster than

public subsidies

Median cost for stadiums opening each decade,

in 2020 dollars

Source: Bradbury, Coates and Humphreys (2022)

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/ THE WASHINGTON POST

Costs have tripled since the 2010s as facilities become more opulent. Much of that increase has fallen on team owners. But the median public subsidy for an arena or stadium has also grown steadily, from $122 million in the 1980s to $500 million since 2020.

What is the public actually paying for? For the answer, we turned to Geoffrey Propheter, a University of Colorado Denver economist who dredged up more than 100 lease agreements for his book, “Major League Sports and the Property Tax.” Propheter said today’s sports team leases are “complex legal artifacts” with hundreds of pages detailing byzantine financial arrangements that somehow always manage to lower owners’ operating costs and/or their tax burdens.

If you were working on one of these deals, your first move might be to take a chunk out of your property tax bill by giving the dirt under the stadium to the local government, making it — voilà! — untaxed public land. In some places, you would still owe property taxes on the building above the land and on the value of your temporary possession of the land over the term of your lease. But maybe not! Lawmakers might exempt you entirely or count your property tax payments as credit toward rent.

You might even give the building to the local government as soon as the lease is up, when its most profitable days are behind it, leaving taxpayers with “a giant paperweight,” Propheter told us. “Now they’ve got to do something with this pile of concrete and steel,” especially if the lease includes a noncompete clause with a new arena or stadium — and that something might be demolition.

Propheter’s data shows sports team leases, like bell-bottom pants and confused cicadas, are on a roughly 30-year cycle with nearly three-quarters lasting between 25 and 40 years. Since the last sports building boom started around 1995, we could be staring down the barrel of another construction wave: The leases of about 44 teams across four different leagues will expire in the next decade.


More than half of NFL leases ending in next 10 years

Sports facility leases for active major league teams in the U.S.

NFL: 60% of leases ending in next 10 years

Lease ends

between

‘25 and ’34

Only includes teams in publicly-owned facilities

or privately-owned facilities on public land

Source: Geoffrey Propheter

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST

More than half of NFL leases ending

over next 10 years

Sports facility leases for U.S. major league teams

NFL: 60% of leases ending in next 10 years

Lease ends

between

‘25 and ’34

Only includes teams in publicly-owned facilities or

privately-owned facilities on public land

Source: Geoffrey Propheter

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST

More than half of NFL leases ending in next 10 years

Sports facility leases for active U.S. major league teams

NFL: 60% of leases ending in next 10 years

Leases ending

between 2025

and 2034

Only includes teams in publicly-owned facilities or privately-owned facilities on public land

Source: Geoffrey Propheter

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST

More than half of NFL leases ending in next 10 years

Sports facility leases for active U.S. major league teams

NFL: 60% of leases ending in next 10 years

Leases ending between

2025 and 2034

Only includes teams in publicly-owned facilities or privately-owned facilities on public land

Source: Geoffrey Propheter

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST

If the majority of those team owners get new facilities, it could produce one of the greatest stadium-construction frenzies in modern history, easily surpassing the Y2K era in sheer dollar terms. Even renovations can have a stunning price tag: The overhaul of Capital One Arena — built for $200 million in 1997 (about $385 million in today’s dollars) — is set to receive a $515 million infusion from D.C. on top of the more than $200 million Leonsis has paid to upgrade the arena since 2014.

You might wonder: Do we need new stadiums? Is something wrong with today’s ballparks?

Not really, unless you consider not raking in as much money as humanly possible to be a defect.

A new stadium ignites what economists call the novelty effect, as interest in the new digs enables owners to crank up ticket prices. Revenue soars in the first few years and remains higher than normal for a decade. A new stadium also lets you copy all the profit-making mechanisms your competitors invented in the decades since you last built a facility, such as spendy dining options and luxury suites with wall-consuming televisions.

The latest trend seems to be sprawling mixed-use developments that promise to create urban entertainment hubs, such as the Battery Atlanta around Georgia’s Truist Park. According to Long, owners are using venue construction “as a Trojan horse … to control larger swaths of land.” By unlocking powerful real estate development tools, a new stadium allows a team owner to create a broader development that captures even more revenue — which, in this case, once went to ordinary barkeeps and restaurant owners hoping to serve the game-day crowds.

“This is often pitched as additional economic development impact,” said Nathan Jensen, a University of Texas at Austin subsidy expert and technically an NFL owner: He grew up in Wisconsin and owns a single share of the Green Bay Packers. But as a result, “people going out for a beer before a game are captured by the developer and are subsidized.”

We may be seeing basic economics at work. New stadiums typically enjoy hundreds of millions of dollars in incentives from local governments. And when you subsidize something, you get more of it, whether you want it or not. Propheter has found that subsidized facilities also tend to be more opulent than their private peers.

Are those subsidies a wise economic investment? Reams of research show that new sports venues don’t generally create promised economic booms. A massive analysis of 42 years of professional sports teams and facilities found that the overall sports environment had an impact on wages — but, uh, not always a positive one. Data on employment and sales found similar results. For example, restaurants and bars near Chesapeake Energy Arena in Oklahoma City benefited from their new neighbor, but others — including nearby entertainment businesses — suffered.

The reality is that money spent on sports doesn’t come out of thin air. It is money that fans might have spent elsewhere. Arenas and stadiums can revitalize a neighborhood by pulling spending from other parts of town, but that’s different from creating new economic activity. While every ownership group argues that their new facility will rejuvenate half the city and make a profit for taxpayers, research shows that sports subsidies simply do not generate the kind of economic benefits they promise to the public.

According to Long, predictions about job creation and sales tax revenue tend to come from the same handful of consultants reusing the same methods that have been inaccurate in the past. On top of that, teams often lowball their estimates of construction costs by covering only part of the true public price tag, leaving out unsexy essentials like sanitation services or transportation infrastructure.

Operating expenses add another wrinkle. Consider Barclays Center in Brooklyn, whose financials our new hero Propheter went through with a fine-toothed comb. Its developer, Forest City Ratner, predicted the arena would make a profit of about $35 million annually. In its first three years, revenue actually beat expectations. But Forest City Ratner’s forecasts dramatically underestimated the arena’s operating and debt-servicing costs, which were about twice as high as expected, driving profits down from $35 million to a maximum of $6 million per year.


Expenses exceeded forecasts

at Barclays Center

Expenses include operating expenses and

debt servicing

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST

Expenses far exceeded forecasts at Barclays Center

Expenses include operating expenses and debt servicing

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST

Expenses exceeded forecasts at Barclays Center

Expenses include operating expenses and debt servicing

DEPARTMENT OF DATA/THE WASHINGTON POST

So why do local officials keep shoveling out money for new stadiums and arenas? It’s partly that sports owners threaten to leave, as Leonsis did late last year, but it’s not just that. Teams have been known to get new facilities without another suitor waiting in the wings.

Data can’t really help here, but according to Bradbury, powerful people may just like sports.

“Politicians love two things: jocks and movie stars,” he told us. And it’s bipartisan: “Democrat and Republican can both agree, ‘We’ve got to have a stadium.’”

Hello there, Data Hive! The Department of Data craves questions. What are you curious about: How have major cities skylines changed over the decades? What are Wall Street’s biggest investors? How did our spending change after the coronavirus pandemic? Just ask!

If your question inspires a column, we’ll send you an official Department of Data button and ID card. This week’s button goes to Nathan Cutler in San Salvador, who asked about the economic impact of stadiums on neighborhoods.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

How Trump, DOGE job cuts may affect the U.S. economy

Published

on

Protestors in New York City demonstrate against the push by President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, who leads the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, to gut federal services and impose mass layoffs, Feb. 19, 2025.

Michael Nigro/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images

The Trump administration’s purge of federal workers may ultimately amount to the biggest job cut in U.S. history, which is likely to have ramifications for the economy, especially at the local level, according to economists.

The White House, with the help of Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency, has fired or offered buyouts to workers across the federal government, the nation’s largest employer.

While the precise scale of the job cuts is as yet unclear, evidence suggests it’s at least in the tens of thousands so far, economists said.

The Trump administration directed federal agencies to dismiss “probationary” employees. Probationary workers are more-recent hires who have been with the federal government for only a year or two and who do not yet have full civil service protections.

There were about 220,000 federal employees with less than a year of tenure as of May 2024, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Additionally, more than 75,000 federal workers have accepted a buyout offer, according to a Trump administration official. They agreed to resign but get paid through September.

Fed Chair Powell: We've had no contact with DOGE

The total of these two groups — nearly 300,000 workers — would make these actions amount to the “largest job cut in American history (by a mile),” Callie Cox, chief market strategist at Ritholtz Wealth Management, wrote Tuesday.

That sum doesn’t include others who may be on the chopping block, such as contractors who work at the U.S. Agency for International Development. Career civil servants who got promotions in the past year are also at risk of losing their jobs, since they’re technically on probation in their new role, Jesse Rothstein, a public policy and economics professor at University of California, Berkeley, said in a podcast Thursday.

Job cuts have come from across the government, at agencies including the Internal Revenue Service, National Park Service, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs, according to the Associated Press.

“We may soon find out the hard way that people drive the U.S. economy,” Cox wrote.

Assessing the scale of federal job cuts

Arlene Rusch, former Internal Revenue Service worker, shows an email notifying her that she has been laid off, as she leaves her office in downtown Denver, Colorado, Feb. 20, 2025. The IRS began laying off roughly 6,000 employees in the middle of tax season as the Trump administration slashes the federal workforce.

Hyoung Chang | Denver Post | Getty Images

The ultimate number of cuts isn’t likely to be as high as 300,000, economists said.

For example, there may be some crossover: Probationary workers who would have been fired may have accepted a buyout. Also, in some cases, the Trump administration tried hiring back workers who’d been terminated.

Public disclosures show more than 26,000 federal workers have already been fired, excluding buyouts, according to a research note Wednesday from investment bank Piper Sandler.

That’s about the same number of workers who lost their jobs when Lehman Brothers collapsed during the 2008 financial crisis, for example.

More from Personal Finance:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren: DOGE’s FDIC firings put banking system at risk
Top-rated charities in jeopardy amid White House, DOGE cuts to foreign aid
A potential winner from Trump tariffs: Tourists traveling abroad

But Thomas Ryan, a North America economist at Capital Economics, estimates that between 100,000 and 200,000 federal staffers have probably already been let go.

That would handily beat IBM’s 1993 purge of 60,000 workers, thought to be the largest corporate layoff in U.S. history. Among other notable corporate cuts, Citigroup and Sears, Roebuck & Co. each slashed about 50,000 jobs, in 2008 and 1993, respectively.

“Certainly if all 200,000-plus probationary workers are fired [without replacement] that would be historic,” Susan Houseman, senior economist at the nonpartisan W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, wrote in an e-mail.

Even among prior federal layoffs, the scale of potential cuts appears unprecedented, experts said.

The U.S. Army, for example, eliminated 50,000 jobs in September 2011 as former President Barack Obama withdrew troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, according to outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. The U.S. Air Force announced plans in 2005 to reduce head count by 40,000, the firm said.

We may soon find out the hard way that people drive the U.S. economy.

Callie Cox

chief market strategist at Ritholtz Wealth Management

The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracked data on federal mass layoffs from 1995 to 2003. During that period, mass layoffs affected anywhere from roughly 9,000 federal workers per year to 23,000 a year, the data show.

If the current federal job cuts “are not historic yet, it feels like we’re headed in that direction pretty quickly,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s.

The White House didn’t comment on the specific scale of cuts.  

“President Trump and his administration are delivering on the American people’s mandate to eliminate wasteful spending and make federal agencies more efficient, which includes removing probationary employees who are not mission critical,” Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said in a written statement. “This is part of President Trump’s sweeping effort to save taxpayer dollars, cut wasteful spending, and restore our broken economy.”

Potential economic impact

Job loss can be painful for household finances.

Affected workers who can’t quickly find new jobs may be forced to make ends meet without regular income. Unemployment benefits may offer a temporary stopgap to eligible workers, but they replace only about a third of prior wages, on average, according to Labor Department data.

The majority of workers who suffer job loss are affected long term, as they have trouble finding new full-time jobs and subsequently earn less money, according to a 2016 research paper by Henry Farber, professor emeritus of economics at Princeton University, who studied data from 1981 to 2015.

Musk defends DOGE efforts

“There are economic impacts to [laid-off workers], their families, to the businesses they would have bought goods and services from,” said Erica Groshen, a senior economics advisor at Cornell University and former commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“The economic consequences of layoffs are like a domino effect that spread across local economies to businesses that seem to have no connection whatsoever to the federal government,” said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale University Budget Lab.

Laid-off workers may spend less at businesses such as local coffee shops, restaurants and day care facilities, he said.

There’s a psychological factor to mass layoffs, too, economists said. Other federal workers, fearful for their jobs, may pull back on spending and delay big-ticket purchases. Businesses with ties to the federal government or the federal workforce may stop hiring and investing due to uncertainty.

Washington, D.C., for example, is expected to suffer a “meaningful” increase in unemployment that would push the capital into a “mild recession,” Adam Kamins and Justin Begley, economists at Moody’s, wrote in a note Tuesday.

Close to 100,000 federal government positions will be eliminated or moved from Washington in the next couple of years, Kamins and Begley estimate. A “flood” of job applicants will limit the private sector’s ability to absorb them into the labor pool, they said.

The economies of Maryland and Virginia won’t suffer to the same degree but will be “materially” hurt due to their exposure to government employment, Kamins and Begley wrote.

Layoffs aren’t likely to show up in federal data for another month, and not until September for those who take the severance deal, according to Piper Sandler. Unemployment claims in Washington, D.C., for the week ended Feb. 8 were up 36% from the prior week.

‘Not recessionary’ on its own

Economists don’t expect the job cuts will have a huge impact on the overall U.S. economy, however.

If about 200,000 probationary workers were to lose their jobs, it would shave roughly one-tenth of a percentage point from annual U.S. gross domestic product, said Tedeschi, who served as chief economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers during the Biden administration.

“This, on its own, is not recessionary,” he said.

Elon Musk, second from the left, walks along the colonnade at the White House on Feb. 19, 2025.

Win Mcnamee | Getty Images News | Getty Images

Ryan, of Capital Economics, said the scope of federal layoffs is relatively small when considered in the context of the U.S. labor market, which added roughly 1.5 million jobs in 2024. He said he expects most displaced federal workers to be rehired quickly since the economy is near full employment, “making any pain short-lived.”

Capital Economics hasn’t downgraded its economic growth forecasts due to the federal layoffs, Ryan said. That assessment includes potential ripple effects felt indirectly through the economy.

Top Social Security official exits after refusing DOGE access to sensitive data

“Even adding the knock-on effects, it’s not going to plunge the U.S. into a recession,” Tedeschi said. “Let’s be realistic here.”

But mass layoffs add to the pressure already being placed on the economy by other Trump administration policies, such as tariffs and mass deportations, economists said.

“This was a healthy economy coming into 2025,” Tedeschi said. “And suddenly we have a number of serious potential headwinds that are stacking up. And this is one of them.”

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Student loan borrowers in SAVE will soon be booted. What to know

Published

on

Damircudic | E+ | Getty Images

Student loan borrowers who expected smaller monthly payments under the new Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, plan received some bad news on Feb. 18, when a U.S. appeals court blocked the program.

As a result, millions of people will need to switch to a new repayment plan soon.

The adjustment will likely be challenging, said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.

“Borrowers who were in SAVE will have to pay more on their federal student loans, in some cases double or even triple the monthly loan payment,” Kantrowitz said.

The recent appeals court order, in addition to blocking SAVE, also ended student loan forgiveness under other income-driven repayment plans.

Here’s what borrowers need to know.

Why was the SAVE plan blocked?

The Biden administration rolled out the SAVE plan in the summer of 2023, describing it as “the most affordable student loan plan ever.” 

However, Republican-backed states quickly filed lawsuits against the program. They argued that former President Joe Biden, with SAVE, was essentially trying to find a roundabout way to forgive student debt after the Supreme Court blocked his attempt at sweeping debt cancellation.

SAVE came with two key provisions that the the legal challenges targeted. It had lower monthly payments than any other income-driven repayment plan offered to student loan borrowers, and it led to quicker debt erasure for those with small balances.

(Income-driven repayment plans set your monthly bill based on your income and family size, and used to lead to debt forgiveness after a certain period, but the terms vary.)

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Feb. 18 sided with the seven Republican-led states that filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education’s repayment plan.

What happens to my forbearance?

While the legal challenges against SAVE were playing out, the Biden administration put student loan borrowers who had enrolled in the plan into an interest-free forbearance. That plan said the pause on any bill could last until December.

But now, Kantrowitz said, “It will likely end sooner under the Trump administration, within weeks or months.”

Do I need to enroll in another plan?

The answer is yes, you need to enroll in another plan.

Borrowers should start looking now at their other repayment options, experts said.

The recent appeals court order against SAVE also ended student loan forgiveness under many other income-driven repayment plans, including the Revised Pay-As-You-Earn repayment plan, or REPAYE.

Currently, only the Income-Based Repayment Plan, or IBR, leads to debt cancellation.

However, if you’re pursuing Public Service Loan Forgiveness, you should be eligible for debt cancellation after 10 years on any of the IDR plans, said Betsy Mayotte, president of The Institute of Student Loan Advisors, a nonprofit that helps borrowers navigate the repayment of their debt. (PSLF offers debt erasure for certain public servants after 10 years of payments.)

More from Personal Finance:
Converting your home to a rental could trigger a ‘tax bomb’ when you sell
What the privatization of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac may mean for homebuyers, investors
U.S. appeals court blocks Biden SAVE plan for student loans

“It’s also important to point out that all the IDR plans cross-pollinate for forgiveness,” Mayotte said. “If someone has been on PAYE for eight years and now switches to IBR, they will still have eight years under their belt toward IBR forgiveness.”

There are several tools available online to help you determine how much your monthly bill would be under different plans.

Meanwhile, the Standard Repayment Plan is a good option for borrowers who are not seeking or eligible for loan forgiveness and can afford the monthly payments, experts say. Under that plan, payments are fixed and borrowers typically make payments for up to 10 years.

What if I can’t afford the new payments?

If you can’t afford the monthly payments under your new repayment plan, you should first see if you qualify for a deferment, experts say. That’s because your loans may not accrue interest under that option, whereas they almost always do in a forbearance.

If you’re unemployed when student loan payments resume, you can request an unemployment deferment with your servicer. If you’re dealing with another financial challenge, meanwhile, you may be eligible for an economic hardship deferment.

Other, lesser-known deferments include the graduate fellowship deferment, the military service and post-active duty deferment and the cancer treatment deferment.

Student loan borrowers who don’t qualify for a deferment may request a forbearance.

Under this option, borrowers can keep their loans on hold for as long as three years. However, because interest accrues during the forbearance period, borrowers can be hit with a larger bill when it ends.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Don’t wait to file your taxes this season, experts say. Here’s why

Published

on

Images By Tang Ming Tung | Digitalvision | Getty Images

Tax identity theft remains a ‘serious problem’

One key reason to file your return early is to avoid tax identity theft, experts say. By filing sooner, you can block thieves from using your Social Security number to file a fraudulent return, Brewer said.  

Tax-related identity theft continues to be a “serious problem,” with many victims facing processing and refund delays, National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins wrote in her January report to Congress.   

At the end of fiscal year 2024, the average processing time to resolve identity theft victim assistance cases was more than 22 months, up from 19 months the previous year, Collins reported.

For the 2024 filing season, the IRS confirmed more than 15,600 identity theft returns through Feb. 29, 2024, up from about 12,600 in 2023, according to a Treasury report issued on April 30.  

‘Measure twice, cut once’

Whether you’re filing early because you’re eager for a refund or want to protect yourself from identity theft, you’ll still need a complete and accurate return to avoid delays, experts say.

While many tax forms come in January, others won’t arrive until mid-February to March or longer, according to the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 

But once you have the necessary forms, “don’t be in a hurry to press ‘send,'” said Tom O’Saben, an enrolled agent and director of tax content and government relations at the National Association of Tax Professionals. 

You should always double-check key details like your name, Social Security number, banking information and other filing data. When it comes to return accuracy, aim to “measure twice, cut once,” he said.

Tax Tip: Free filing

IRS layoffs could impact service

With thousands of IRS layoffs this week, some experts worry the cuts could impact taxpayer service.

But your refund shouldn’t be affected if you file an accurate return electronically and select direct deposit for payment, O’Saben said.

Typically, you can expect the IRS to process your e-filed return within 21 days. “Corrections or extra review” could take longer, according to the agency.

“Barring a [system] crash, I would expect business as usual,” O’Saben said. “There shouldn’t be an issue meeting the timeline that the IRS lays out.”  

Continue Reading

Trending