Connect with us

UNCATEGORIZED

COUNTERPOINT: IRS Should Not Be Trusted With Direct File

Published

on

By David B. McGarry, InsideSources.com (TNS)

Tax Day looms, and the taxman cometh. It is a certainty, as Ben Franklin said.

This year, the IRS has launched a pilot program dubbed “Direct File” through which Americans can opt to have the IRS prepare their taxes for free (well, except for the billions of taxpayer dollars used to create the program).

The IRS wants to eliminate Americans’ reliance on private-sector tax-preparation services. Despite its recent trendiness in certain circles, Direct File has little potential for good—and much for bad. In addition to the pilot program’s dubious legality, there are many fiscal and prudential reasons not to trust the IRS with this new responsibility.

Adding a federally operated competitor to a market does not equate to providing or promoting competition, as some of its advocates have argued—not in any traditional usage. Nobody would consider creating a federal grocery store, a federal airline or a federal movie studio as a pro-market or pro-competitive policy. State-run enterprises enjoy the profoundly anti-competitive advantage of bearing the imprimatur of the state, and they are not subject to the ordinary competitive pressures to which private businesses must remain sensitive and respond.

Neither does a Direct File system seem likely to provide a valuable service to taxpayers. The proposed system’s very conceit clangs against the American legal and political tradition, in which adversarial actors’ opposition to one another is an indispensable guardian of liberty and good governance. This combative friction—the defense lawyer against the prosecution, Congress against the presidency, the states against the federal government—ensures (in theory, at least) that no one faction or institution has a smooth route to self-interested injustice.

The IRS proposes to excise such friction. The agency wants to file the citizen’s taxes, collect that money, and double back to conduct audits—without any mediating institution to gainsay potential (nay, likely) abuse. Washington politicians and bureaucrats certainly should not promote its adoption. Low-income and minority taxpayers—whom IRS auditors target disproportionately and whom the IRS would likely market Direct File most energetically—have perhaps the most significant interest in retaining private intermediaries such as TurboTax or TaxSlayer.

What’s more, Direct File would not be “free,” as its advocates aver. Americans might not pay when filing their taxes, but those tax dollars would fund the digital infrastructure, personnel and other resources undergirding the system.

The IRS estimates Direct File to cost $64 million to $249 million annually, which seems wildly low. In 2021, researchers at Govini analyzed Direct File’s likely price tag against the experience of Healthcare.gov, concluding that the former’s costs would dwarf the latter’s. Govini reported the Obamacare website cost taxpayers $20.2 billion through October 2021.

An audit by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) could not confirm the IRS’s cost assumptions—nor could the agency meaningfully defend them. “When we asked the IRS for documentation supporting how it arrived at these various cost estimates,” TIGTA said, “it could not provide us with any.” This lacuna elicits no confidence in the IRS’s figures.

Besides such fiscal qualms, the IRS is an agency ill-suited to ameliorate the private-sector harms that proponents of Direct File have identified.

Consider the taxman’s record.

The IRS has failed routinely to prevent data breaches, including a 2022 incident in which the agency briefly published the personal data of 120,000 taxpayers. According to a 2022 Government Accountability Office report, from 2012 to 2021, “the IRS completed 1,694 investigations into the willful unauthorized access of tax data by employees.” The agency substantiated 462 cases as “violations” and left 380 cases unresolved.

Some say private tax preppers have targeted minority communities. But the IRS cracks down on such populations with gusto, auditing counties in predominantly Black and rural regions of the Deep South most frequently. “Audit rates are also very high in the largely Hispanic communities in south Texas, the counties with Native American reservations in South Dakota, and the poor, White counties in Kentucky’s Appalachia region,” MarketWatch reported in 2019. “In fact, the audit rates in these areas were more than 40 percent above the national average.”

The IRS is the ultimate economic bully. Its audits are notoriously ferocious and burdensome, and it has, at times, deployed its vast powers for unethical and politicized ends. What’s more, the agency’s customer-service capacity has proven painfully dismal, erecting further obstacles for would-be law-abiding taxpayers. Offering Direct File at scale would substantially increase the demand for customer and technical support, a demand the IRS could not likely meet.

The proper remedy to any issues with private tax preparation companies is to address discrete problems where they exist. Instead, advocates of Direct File propose to centralize still more power in one of Washington’s least responsible agencies, injecting a fully socialized competitor into the market and mucking up the basic principles of American governance.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

David B. McGarry is a policy analyst at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

_______

(This essay is available to Tribune News Service subscribers. TNS did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of TNS or its editors.)

©2024 Tribune Content Agency LLC

Continue Reading

UNCATEGORIZED

Hardware Rally Diverges From Software Stocks

Published

on

Hardware Rally Diverges From Software Stocks

As midyear earnings reports flood Wall Street during the week of July 21, 2026, a sharp performance divergence has emerged within the technology sector. Equity indices reflect robust institutional buying in semiconductor manufacturers, data center infrastructure providers, and specialized power equipment suppliers. Conversely, enterprise Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) equities are facing notable valuation pressure as institutional investors demand clear, high-margin top-line revenue growth to justify elevated price-to-earnings multiples.

The sustained momentum in hardware equities is anchored in massive, multi-billion-dollar capital expenditure budgets allocated by mega-cap technology corporations. Demand for next-generation computing architectures, high-density server hardware, and specialized cooling infrastructure remains unyielding as enterprises globally build out localized computing clusters. Semiconductor foundries and equipment manufacturers continue to report record order backlogs, granting these companies exceptional pricing power and revenue visibility despite broader macroeconomic uncertainty.

In contrast, the enterprise software segment is navigating a rigorous fundamental reassessment. While software vendors have aggressively integrated automated digital features across their applications, enterprise customers are closely scrutinizing software licensing expenditures. Corporate IT departments are demanding verifiable productivity metrics before expanding user licenses, leading to extended sales cycles for software providers. Firms that fail to demonstrate direct, measurable return on investment are experiencing sharp post-earnings corrections.

For equity portfolio managers, navigating the midyear technology landscape requires strict balance sheet analysis and disciplined stock selection. Investors should focus on hardware leaders with defensible technological moats and enterprise software firms featuring deep workflow integration and proven monetization models. Maintaining a balanced, highly selective exposure protects capital while capturing structural technological growth.

Continue Reading

UNCATEGORIZED

Hardware vs. Software Divergence: Navigating Midyear 2026 Tech Sector Earnings

Published

on

Hardware vs. Software Divergence: Navigating Midyear 2026 Tech Sector Earnings

As the midyear 2026 earnings season accelerates through the week of July 20, the technology sector is displaying a notable operational split between hardware infrastructure providers and enterprise software-as-a-service (SaaS) platforms. Market indices reflect strong institutional demand for companies supplying core computing hardware, advanced power management systems, and specialized optical networking components. Conversely, software providers are facing intense margin scrutiny as Wall Street demands concrete, high-margin revenue growth to justify elevated software valuations.

The sustained outperformance of hardware equities is anchored in ongoing, multi-billion-dollar global capital investments into data center infrastructure, grid capacity expansion, and high-performance chip architecture. Semiconductor foundries and specialized component suppliers have consistently reported robust order backlogs, driven by enterprise commitments to build out secure, localized computing clusters. Investors have rewarded these companies due to their tangible, order-backed revenue visibility and strong pricing power in a constrained supply environment.

On the other hand, the software sector is navigating a transition phase. While enterprise software vendors have heavily invested in integrating automated AI capabilities across their product suites, corporate clients are scrutinizing software licencing costs and requiring clear return-on-investment metrics before expanding enterprise seat licenses. Consequently, software vendors that rely on generic feature upgrades without demonstrable productivity improvements are seeing extended sales cycles and valuation compression during quarterly earnings calls.

For equity investors, navigating the tech market for the remainder of 2026 requires rigorous fundamental analysis focused on capital efficiency and cash flow generation. Strategic focus should be directed toward hardware leaders with unassailable technological moats and enterprise software companies possessing deep workflow integration and proven monetization models. Maintaining a balanced, selective exposure ensures participation in technological growth while hedging against localized valuation corrections.

Continue Reading

UNCATEGORIZED

Utilities Re-Valuation: How Industrial Power Demand Driven by AI Upgrades Sector Equities

Published

on

How Industrial Power Demand Driven by AI Upgrades Sector Equities

Traditionally viewed as defensive, low-growth dividend plays, utility equities are undergoing a remarkable structural re-valuation across major stock exchanges in July 2026. Driven by an unprecedented surge in industrial power requirements—stemming from high-density data centers, advanced domestic manufacturing plants, and widespread electrification initiatives—utility providers are presenting revenue growth profiles historically reserved for growth sectors. This transition has repositioned power and energy infrastructure equities into prime targets for institutional capital.

The driver of this market shift is the long-term contractual nature of commercial energy demand. Tech giants and industrial manufacturers are entering into multi-decade power purchase agreements (PPAs) with utility operators to secure guaranteed baseload power. To meet this demand, utility companies are undertaking massive capital expenditure programs to modernize electrical transmission networks, integrate next-generation nuclear and renewable power facilities, and enhance regional grid resilience. Regulated utility models allow these companies to earn predictable returns on these substantial capital investments.

Furthermore, equity analysts highlight that the sector offers an attractive blend of growth potential and downside protection in a sustained high-interest-rate environment. While elevated capital costs increase borrowing expenses for grid infrastructure upgrades, the sheer volume of new industrial power demand provides strong top-line revenue expansion that offsets debt-servicing expenses. Investors seeking reliable yield combined with structural capital appreciation are increasingly allocating capital to regulated electric utilities and independent power producers.

Moving through the second half of 2026, portfolio managers recommend evaluating utility equities based on regional regulatory environments and capital execution track records. Companies operating in regions with streamlined permitting processes, supportive state regulatory commissions, and direct proximity to expanding industrial corridors are best positioned to deliver superior long-term shareholder value.

Continue Reading

Trending