---

Complex tax code
makes compliance
a burden

WITHOUT a doubt, the largest source of compliance burdens for taxpayers and the IRS alike is the overwhelming complexity of the tax code, and without a doubt, the only meaningful way to reduce these compliance burdens is to simplify the tax code enormously.''

So says Nina E. Olson, whose job as national taxpayer advocate must be one of the most mind-blowing in all of government work.

We might pity her -- if for not anything else than having to utter phrases like "compliance burdens" -- but not as the April 15 income tax filing deadline looms. Not when 33 percent of us who have yet to comply are wrestling with those accursed 1040s and Schedules A through Z.

Besides, she's not saying something Americans don't already know. She's not the only one who recognizes that figuring taxes can morph a normal, well-adjusted, law-abiding citizen into a babbling quiver of frustration, sobbing face down in a clutter of receipts, records and forms 3520s, 8815s, 8683s of Publication 919 and TD F 90-22.1s.

Complexity is the heart and soul of the tax code. Log on to the IRS Web site and you're likely to pass out in confusion. There's so much stuff there your brain will shut down to protect itself from permanent damage.

Government guys say the tax code is a mess because components were rolled in like a ball of tar along a gravel road. Changes, add-ons, take-aways and myriad accommodations for one constituency or another gum up the whole shebang. True, but my hunch is that government guys like it that way. All the better to submerge clarity.

Government guys say the code ought to be simplified, and have a team working on it right now for a plan to be unveiled in July. But I suspect simplicity will take a back seat to further complicity between politicians and their moneyed friends.

I don't mind shuttling some of my earnings to run the government. I do mind when some don't put in their fair share.

A few days before last year's election, President Bush put his name on a $137 billion bag of tax breaks. The administration and the Republican Congress bestowed $100 million to NASCAR track owners, $120 million to makers of fighter jets the Air Force doesn't want, $99 million for ships the Navy doesn't want, $4.3 million for "combat- utilization-ready" pickup trucks that electrocute enemies if they touch the door handles and $3 billion principally for big drug companies.

The legislation, spuriously called the American Jobs Creation Act, supposedly motivates companies to generate new employment with their tax savings. The disconnect comes when the corporations benefiting from the breaks aren't held accountable; they aren't required to hire more workers. More often, the savings flow to the profit columns and to already flush stockholders.

You can't fault the members of Congress who help out their corporate pals. Though voters sent them to their Capitol offices, individuals don't flex the financial muscle of business and industry to steer tax and spending policies. Most voters have neither the time nor the wherewithal to tell political leaders how they'd like tax dollars used.

If you haven't already noticed, your 1040 has a little check box at the top, right under the section where you write in your name, address and Social Security number. It asks if you want $3 to go to the presidential election campaign fund.

There ought to be more check boxes or space where people can direct specifically where they want their money going. Here's a sample:

Check "yes" or "no": Malfunctioning Stryker vehicles? Subsidies for oil companies? National park maintenance? Arctic wildlife refuge drilling? Universal health care? Education? Halliburton? Presidential propaganda campaigns for privatizing Social Security?"

No, no, yes, no, yes, yes, no, definitely no.

---