IRS. Yes or no? : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

There is so much obfuscation, spinning and lying going on right now, that a lot of people are confused about where we really stand on remediation. I distinctly remember reading more than a year ago that the IRS had admitted it could not make the rollover deadline. Now, however, I see that Charles Rossotti, the new commissioner, is singing a different tune. Rossotti Comments
-- Vic (, March 04, 1999


A definite maybe - if what he says happens, then testing could complete in October, 1999.


Good research, thanks. This is at least many hundred times more information (and possibly even do-able - even if very, very optimisic) than what was previously put out in October - which promised that everything would be compliant by January 1999. The list of items is more thorough, revealing, and doesn't appear to be missing anything important.

(Do I sound optimistic enough here? Haven't filed yet - I figure I'll in their side for once, maybe avoid the audit I had last two years.)

Seriously, this kind of report - if done everywhere, then IF completed or updated as schedules slip through the summer and fall - would help restore some degree of confidence sorely missing that they even know what they're doing up there.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (, March 04, 1999.

What difference does it make if there's a breakdown in communications, USPS, electricity, water, energy, etc.?

Why are they gearing up National Guards & military? Remember in really bad disasters the IRS has given some leeways to those in the disaster areas. If it's a really bad disaster that the nation is facing then taxes will not be the primary concern.

If nothing happens with Y2K then we can look forward to the IRS' compliant systems. If something happens to other parts of the infrastructure it will impact every aspect of government bureacracies. If the lights go out or similar problem occurs, do you think IRS employees will not take care of their families first just like it's been said that National Guard members would do?

Plus what about corruption from noncompliant systems? Even if IRS' systems were compliant they must interface with a lot of other systems that may or not be compliant, esp. with electronic filing.

-- Texan (, March 04, 1999.


I see that some of your post got truncated in your original message. Following your link you said "Little wonder that so many people are confused, and many of them, hoping for the best, opt for the "good" scenario".

The reason it was truncated was because the final ">" from your "" was missing. Since the close was incomplete, it truncated the rest of your message. Hope this helps.

-- David (, March 04, 1999.

Now that made alot of sense didn't it? :-)

What I meant to say was that you left off the ">" in your /a at the close of your link. Does that make sense now?

You can review the source of your message using your brower. For instance, in Netscape use CONTROL-U to you see it.

-- David (, March 04, 1999.

I really need to slow down a little and read these things before sending. D- for spelling and misplaced words.

-- David (, March 04, 1999.

According to this article, the IRS should be compliant now. :-),4,27886,00.html?


IRS will be Y2K ready by 1999

By Reuters

Special to CNET

October 23, 1998, 5:10 a.m. PT

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, IRS's chief said yesterday.

"The moment of truth is very near on Y2K," Charles Rossotti told hundreds of certified public accountants meeting here this week.

"The overall message is that while there may be--and probably will be--some glitches, the good news is that all key [IRS] systems will be Y2K compliant by January 1999," Rossotti said.


-- Kevin (, March 04, 1999.

Thanks, David. I knew it was gone; just didn't know why.

-- Vic (, March 04, 1999.


Thanks for the reminder. Similiar to previous IRS thread. Someone posted two words: Independent verification.

Obviously, the head of the IRS is not objective and seems to have a very positive way of revealing information.

This is an excerpt from 'Federal Computer Week'

MARCH 1, 1999 . . . 13:35 EST

IRS financial computers in dire need of upgrades


The top financial administrator at the Internal Revenue Service told Congress today that the agency's financial reporting system cannot reliably track federal tax revenue, tax refunds and prepare other key financial statements.

Donna Cunninghame, chief financial officer at the IRS, told the House Subcommittee on Government, Management, Information and Technology that computer systems which date back to the 1960s and 1970s continue to plague the IRS' ability to adequately track the agency's financial statements, including budgetary resources.

"The extremely fragmented nature of IRS technology creates many problems," Cunninghame said. "The IRS must replace nearly its entire inventory of computer applications and convert its data on every taxpayer to new systems."

Cunninghame's comments were in response to a General Accounting Office audit, the findings of which were basically accurate, she said. The hearing on the audit is the first in a series of hearings the subcommittee will conduct to examine the auditing of financial statements of selected federal agencies. In the late 1980s, Congress recognized that one of the root causes of waste in the federal government was poor financial management leadership, policies, systems and practices. Today is the deadline for the GAO audit statements.

-- Texan (, March 04, 1999.

Good job, Kevin. I suppose a few months from now we'll see the same message, but with a different date.

-- Vic (, March 04, 1999.

This is hilarious considering that the IRS just went through an audit with the GAO and flunked. They can't even do basic record keeping and their excuse is their ancient software that they are still using???? What are they fixing to be Y2k compliant??? The article was in the Des Moines Register this week.

-- beckie (, March 04, 1999.

What does a $300,000.00 lazer printer look like? ROFL

-- somebodysrich (, March 04, 1999.

Not to mention the Chevrolet Blazer that was on their books and not recorded properly, (probably one they seized in a tax audit)!

-- Jane (justwatching@sneak.apeek), March 04, 1999.

No major problems so far, but bookmark the following site. It's an index of problem alerts from the IRS:

-- Kevin (, March 04, 1999.

What else are they going to say? That they're not going to be ready?

If they admitted that they aren't ready, they will be faced with the likelihood of even more of what they call "non-compliance."

Note that the article says that they are concentrating on processing returns and getting out refunds.

No mention of how they are doing in ability to track and process us so-called "tax cheaters" or "tax evaders" or non-filers.

Fact is, they are up to their a-holes in alligators already, trying to deal with non-filers, etc.

More and more people are seeing the IRS for the scam that it is, and are just saying "NO"

You can instantly have 30% or more money for your Y2k preps by stopping withholding or stopping filing/paying quarterly estimates.

check out

I am not offering legal advice or encouraging anyone to break any of the millions of laws you are subject to. Yadda, yadda.

-- A (, March 05, 1999.

Something to consider before April 15. Find out if by signing your name to the 1040 forms that you are willing to proceed with criminal charges towards yourself by the govt. Remember that the 5th Amendment is for you as protection in signing those 1040's. Check out a site I read and electronically downloaded for free/donation to explain what i have said. Try: download free file and read it. will also help your reading level. Enjoy Nontxpyer

-- Nontxpyer (, March 05, 1999.

The Treasury department's Inspector General's office isn't as optimistic as the commissioner. Testimony at:


-- LP (, March 05, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ