The Life and Death of Direct File [pdf]
79 points by ronbenton 3 hours ago | 25 comments

anigbrowl 57 minutes ago
I was surprised how much I enjoyed reading this. Although it's necessarily opinionate d(the lead author was part of the Direct file team) it comes off as very even-handed, giving equal consideration to successes and failures, and addressing the partisan political environment in factual terms.

It's unusually well-written, providing lots of key details or dropping in relevant context without ever losing sight of the big picture and the looming deadlines. I expected to just read the executive summary and then skim the rest, but it held my attention the whole way through.

reply
LastTrain 2 hours ago
There isn’t much to study - it didn’t succeed or fail on the merits - someone didn’t like it because he didn’t create it so it got axed.
reply
ronbenton 2 hours ago
I disagree wholeheartedly that there isn’t much to study. Direct File was actually a resounding success, especially when you consider how much difficulty governments tend to have shipping good software products. There is a lot of good information in here that government entities can learn from.
reply
mixdup 2 hours ago
Including how and why it died. That is an important lesson for the entire governmental enterprise, including all decision-makers, to learn: that government CAN deliver something good and one single person should not be in totalitarian control
reply
IncreasePosts 51 minutes ago
I think it speaks to doing things "the right way". Direct file could have been mandated by Congress, but it wasn't. Instead it only directed the IRS to do a "study" as a "voluntary agency initiative". That left full control of whether it should be done in the hands of the IRS and the executive branch.
reply
throw0101d 35 minutes ago
> Direct file could have been mandated by Congress, but it wasn't.

Something being mandated by Congress is no protection at times:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_Inter...

(Or the Constitution for that matter it seems.)

reply
firesteelrain 2 hours ago
It had talented software engineers involved including with the marketplace. It succumbed to political forces
reply
pudgywalsh 54 minutes ago
[flagged]
reply
pas 24 minutes ago
let's say a non-profit hosts it somewhere can people use it to file their taxes for free?
reply
johnsmith1840 20 minutes ago
Very basic analysis by da bot says it costs the government roughly 226$ per filing vs a private company 40$.

Would love to hear the opposite argument but the point I first saw online is saying the same, that it cost more tax payer money to run than it saved those tax payers.

Scale problem? Open to hearing the opposite argument.

reply
ronbenton 16 minutes ago
It was a pilot and was open to a small subset of taxpayers. It was intentionally not benefiting from economy of scale to incrementally deliver value rather than probably badly trying to hit every use case the first go around.

The cost per filing criticism is generally posited in bad faith, by people who don’t understand incremental software delivery, or both

reply
x3haloed 11 minutes ago
Even if that's true, there's no reason it can't be streamlined over time. The true scaling problem is profit. The government has an interest in accurate tax collection -- not collecting a service fee.
reply
kg 31 seconds ago
This ignores the time cost of having to find the right private company to file your taxes (everyone loves price shopping!) and manually funnel all your data into it, data the government probably already has.

P.S. When citing that you had AI do a basic analysis of something, specifying what you analyzed and which AI you used would be nice so other people can reproduce it or dig deeper.

reply
Defenestresque 2 hours ago
A fascinating , yet sad, post-mortem.

Anyone wheeling and dealing along in the shadows between "politics" and "deliverable, functioning product" should read it. Or, I guess, paste the link into Claude or ChatGPT and ask it to summarize for them, lessons learned in bullet points and how it could apply to $their_job.

But I'm generally a weirdo who finds these kinds of reports fascinating, so don't purely go on my recommendation.

reply
ChrisArchitect 11 minutes ago
Publication homepage with some intro/context instead of direct pdf: https://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/research/publications/2026/...
reply
gradus_ad 2 hours ago
Eh, government should not be in the business of maintaining digital infrastructure, regardless of how capable it might be. As much of it as possible should be contracted out to 3rd parties.
reply
wbillingsley 38 minutes ago
Profit motives in infrastructure are a bad idea. See Thames Water in the UK, for instance. It always introduces a perverse incentive where if the company in control of the infrastructure can extract an extra million in profit by making everything less efficient and costing everyone else involved a billion, it's still in that company's interest to do so.

This is a prime example of that. H&R Block, etc, benefit from there not being direct file by around $3bn in revenue or around $750m in profit. Rough sums on the time saved by direct file if everyone used it is 8h * average wage * taxpayers, which seems to be approximately $44bn. i.e. in axing direct file, it has "created" $3bn in economic activity to the private infrastructure-owner (the intermediary between you and filing your return), but at the cost of $44bn in lost time & therefore lost activity (the other things you could have been doing) to the rest of the economy.

Infrastructure is not the economy. Infrastructure is the thing the economy runs on top of / has to use. Given that it is the role of government to govern the economy, it is the role of government to ensure that the infrastructure is running well (be the custodian of the infrastructure).

reply
doginasuit 44 minutes ago
Arguing the other side, digital infrastructure shouldn't be such a complicated domain that it is out of the reach of governments. This is the authority we trust to build our roads and virtually every other meaningful infrastructure in our civic life. Why should digital infrastructure be out of bounds?

The only alternative is inserting a third party, one that has full access to all your financial information. That shouldn't be necessary for the average filer, assuming a bare minimum of competence, like one might assume for the only country to put a human on the moon and bring them safely home.

reply
compiler-guy 2 hours ago
Explain your reasoning at least.

The government has to maintain some infrastructure to get this sort of thing done. Whether digital or analog. And if it contracts it out, it needs to oversee it. So no matter how it is done, the government has to pay.

reply
NoDodgeQuestion 2 hours ago
Don't you care about the actual outcome at all? Even if the government does a better job, you still prefer a third-party organization?
reply
denkmoon 2 hours ago
You could just light the money on fire instead and get the same result. Contractors routinely screw the tax payer. I once had a job in one of these third parties where the entire operation was effectively defrauding the tax payer by claiming 1hr jobs would take 40.
reply
shepardrtc 2 hours ago
At exorbitant costs or lackluster execution, with plenty of campaign donations along the way
reply
forestrywat 19 minutes ago
Was direct file exorbitant expensive? Or lackluster? What about all the 18F work?

On the flip side, plenty of private companies are expensive and corrupt.

I think it's possible both can be good and both can be bad.

reply
zephen 54 minutes ago
Do you think the government should allow electronic filing of taxes?

Because if the government is going to accept returns electronically instead of through the physical mail, then it should accept them without requiring an intermediary.

Interestingly, it does this for corporations, but not for individuals.

Gee, I wonder why.

Personally, I think that (a) the government needs to have my PII to process my taxes, and that (b) having the government require me to also hand my PII to a third party in order to pay taxes is a big fucking security nightmare.

reply
timcobb 2 hours ago
> As much of it as possible should be contracted out to 3rd parties.

This is the case pretty much.

reply
croes 55 minutes ago
Direct File was a service not infrastructure
reply