IRS making it? : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Here is a new deadline for the IRS. It's not far off. Are you prepared to recognize that y2k may only be of moderate concern if they make it? Isn't this one agency that everybody said was toast? How many successes will it take to cool YOUR jets... :-)

R.A. Mann

``By the end of January, every computer program we have will by Y2K-compliant,'' predicted John Yost, who oversees the effort at IRS.

-- R.A. Mann (, January 05, 1999


Hmm...this article below says the IRS would be ready by January 1, 1999:,4,27886,00.html?

"It will cost $1 billion to pull it off and "glitches" are inevitable, but the U.S. Internal Revenue Service's computers will be ready to fight the millennium bug on January 1 1999, the IRS's chief said yesterday."

This article is from October 23, 1998.

-- Kevin (, January 05, 1999.

And while we're on the subject of missed deadlines, take a look at this bank's Y2K page, which they refer to as "year 2000 readiness disclosure":

"By the end of the first quarter of 1999*, we will complete programming code conversions and internal testing."

" * The original estimate for completion of programming code conversions and internal testing was the end of 1998."

-- Kevin (, January 05, 1999.


Please provide exact definitions of the following terms so that claims may be independently verified:

"new deadline" (as contrasted with "old deadline", "original deadline", "next new deadline", "new deadline after the next new deadline" ...)

"y2k" (how much of the collection of multiple calendar-related problems and their consequences are you including in this term?)

"moderate" and "concern"


and from Mr. Yost's quote:

"every", "computer", "program", "we have", and "Y2K-compliant".

I'm not playing word games. I have 30 years experience in computer programming, and I know a lot of ways to interpret each of the above terms, depending on the context, to fool myself or others into thinking that the status of a programming project is better than it "really" is.

You see, without exact definitions, neither your skepticism about Y2k pessimists nor Y2k pessimists' skepticism about Y2k progress reports can be convincingly compared to any objective standard.


-- No Spam Please (, January 05, 1999.

The IRS has to say that. What's the alternative? Announce that they aren't going to make it, and that they'll just have to trust everyone's honesty, because they won't have a clue as to how much you owe? There go all the estimated tax revenues for 1999!

This is not to say they're lying - just that their announcement has no information value.

-- Ned (, January 05, 1999.

Seeing is believing, knowing is to get a better view!

-- Now What (we', January 05, 1999.

I wouldn't be at all suprised if they suddenly encounter "unexpected problems", particularly in dealing with refunds, at some point in time after they have completed their collections for April 2000.

-- (, January 05, 1999.

I wonder if Vegas has some odds facility for betting on Y2K vs the IRS. Given past computer performance, the IRS would be a heavy underdog.

-- RD. ->H (, January 05, 1999.

-- No Spam:

If we have to define every word we use to anyone that is looking for some way to refute a clear and precise statement, we may as well stop communicating! This is one of many goals the IRS has used. It may not be the last, but that is no indicator of failure. You know that. Let's not get too technical, it can work both ways. RA

-- R.A. Mann (, January 05, 1999.

-- Ned: The IRS would be better off saying nothing if they were not planning on being compliant soon.... think about it. They are not obligated too make any goals known. RA

-- R.A. Mann (, January 05, 1999.

R.A. Mann,

That depends on what "is" Is .

-- Mike (, January 06, 1999.


>If we have to define every word we use to anyone that is looking for some way to refute a clear and precise statement,

To paraphrase my preceding message: Show me the clear and precise statement.

(no smiley this time)

-- No Spam Please (, January 06, 1999.


Which official definition of "Y2K-compliant" was Yost using?

Who independently tested every IRS computer program?


Catch my drift?

-- No Spam Please (, January 06, 1999.

Just for fun, how many of you or anyone else you know would send money to the irs if they announced or even hinted that they might have y2k problems? What would you do if you knew that they would not be ready?

-- Damian Solorzano (, January 06, 1999.


"We have Y2k problems" doesn't mean "we have no way of keeping track of your tax liability".

-- No Spam Please (, January 06, 1999.

You can give yourself an immediate 30% to 50% (or more) raise by becoming a "nontaxpayer". You could buy a lot of Y2K prep goodies by keeping MOST of your 1999 money for yourself.

The power grid IS going down, taking everything else with it. You need all the bucks you can get to prepare.

Do yourself (and your family/friends) a big favor -- check out

(Just copy the above line to your browser "(Go to) Location:" window.

-- NTP (, January 06, 1999.

Instead of relying upon the flood of current disinfo re IRS, go read their Request for Comment

Then do a bit of research on at DejaNews archives using dates of Sept 97 thru Jun 98 using IRS as the search parameter, another search using Frank Ney as the author (you will need his email addy, but if you do the IRS search first you will find his addy). Those two searchs will yield more "real" IRS info than you want to read, and will give you additional govt links. If that isn't enough check out the GAO Y2k archives at:

-- Mitchell Barnes (, January 06, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ