IRS Plans Jan. 30 Tax Season Opening for 1040 Filers

IRS Plans Jan. 30 Tax Season Opening For 1040 Filers

Following the January tax law changes made by Congress under the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA), the Internal Revenue Service announced today it plans to open the 2013 filing season and begin processing individual income tax returns on Jan. 30.

The IRS will begin accepting tax returns on that date after updating forms and completing programming and testing of its processing systems. This will reflect the bulk of the late tax law changes enacted Jan. 2. The announcement means that the vast majority of tax filers–more than 120 million households–should be able to start filing tax returns starting Jan 30.

The IRS estimates that remaining households will be able to start filing in late February or into March because of the need for more extensive form and processing systems changes. This group includes people claiming residential energy credits, depreciation of property or general business credits. Most of those in this group file more complex tax returns and typically file closer to the April 15 deadline or obtain an extension.

“We have worked hard to open tax season as soon as possible,” IRS Acting Commissioner Steven T. Miller said. “This date ensures we have the time we need to update and test our processing systems.”

The IRS will not process paper tax returns before the anticipated Jan. 30 opening date. There is no advantage to filing on paper before the opening date, and taxpayers will receive their tax refunds much faster by using e-file with direct deposit.

“The best option for taxpayers is to file electronically,” Miller said.

The opening of the filing season follows passage by Congress of an extensive set of tax changes in ATRA on Jan. 1, 2013, with many affecting tax returns for 2012. While the IRS worked to anticipate the late tax law changes as much as possible, the final law required that the IRS update forms and instructions as well as make critical processing system adjustments before it can begin accepting tax returns.

The IRS originally planned to open electronic filing this year on Jan. 22; more than 80 percent of taxpayers filed electronically last year.

Who Can File Starting Jan. 30?

The IRS anticipates that the vast majority of all taxpayers can file starting Jan. 30, regardless of whether they file electronically or on paper. The IRS will be able to accept tax returns affected by the late Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch as well as the three major “extender” provisions for people claiming the state and local sales tax deduction, higher education tuition and fees deduction and educator expenses deduction.

Who Can’t File Until Later?

There are several forms affected by the late legislation that require more extensive programming and testing of IRS systems. The IRS hopes to begin accepting tax returns including these tax forms between late February and into March; a specific date will be announced in the near future.

The key forms that require more extensive programming changes include Form 5695 (Residential Energy Credits), Form 4562 (Depreciation and Amortization) and Form 3800 (General Business Credit). A full listing of the forms that won’t be accepted until later is available on IRS.gov.

As part of this effort, the IRS will be working closely with the tax software industry and tax professional community to minimize delays and ensure as smooth a tax season as possible under the circumstances.

Updated information will be posted on IRS.gov.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Jim mcskeevey January 14, 2013 at 12:43 AM
Yo naz how do you have a flat tax that is progressive?
Jim mcskeevey January 14, 2013 at 12:47 AM
Could you be dumber. Tax rates peaked at record high in 07 when spending was 2.9b and revs were 2.7b. Today spend is 3.8 t and revs are 2.6t. Does that sound like spending is flat. What a dope. No wonder collingswood is junk bond status
Tim Lewis January 14, 2013 at 12:51 AM
Martin, what's Your point? That higher-income earners don't pay enough? The only people paying income taxes are those who make above average income. Are you saying they don't may enough? Why not? tell me: how much income is too much for someone to have? Who gets to decide?
Nazaretti January 14, 2013 at 12:59 AM
To Jim mcskeevey: The meaning of "flat tax" depends on what part of the tax system you flatten. I would flatten the disparities among types of income and types of spending, which would greatly simplify tax forms and calculations. Flattening the rate does next to nothing to simplify filing, since you still have to sort through the various types of income and types of spending (i.e., deductions, etc.).
Porterincollingswood January 14, 2013 at 01:22 AM
Whatever, troll. Taxes did not peak in 2007, what a joke. Learn something, we're all paying for it.
Porterincollingswood January 14, 2013 at 01:23 AM
I mean, Winston. You are not a serious human being.
Joe January 14, 2013 at 01:38 AM
@porter - you forgot to factor this into your analysis. The Democrats can only win an election if they cheat. That's why they don't want voter ID. Consider this: Obama lost every state that has voter ID. Many places that Obama won had over 100% turnout, meaning more votes than registered voters. Lines in swing states like Va and Ohio was the result of union drones flocking to polls late armed with voter lists provided by the Democrat party. In some districts in Phila Obama got 100% of the vote - a statistical impossibility. So before you think that the socialist in the White House got some sort of mandate, all he got was a tainted Chicago-style victory on his way to turning America into a third world country.
Porterincollingswood January 14, 2013 at 01:43 AM
That's right, I totally forgot that. Thanks for reminding us. Here is an open invite, I will drive you through the parts of North Philadelphia where Romney got zero votes. We will go block by block and door to door and see if we can find one person who did / wanted to vote for Romney. Will drive, pay for gas, and buy you a happy meal at McDonalds. Let me know what day works best for you. I am sure there are tons of Romney votes in those districts. It is "impossible" to believe that a place comprised of people Romney personally attacked on camera wouldn't come out and vote for him. I mean, I am sure Obama got at least 50% of former KKK members, no? Maybe a trip to Mississippi is in order to, Matlock.
Joe January 14, 2013 at 01:47 AM
Martin talks like one of those liberals who can only make it in life if something is taken from someone and given to him. Obama can destroy the economy, jack up taxes, reward illegal aliens with every benefit under the sun, turn his back on Israel, our only ally in the Middle East, kiss up to the jihadists, let his wife spend hundreds of millions on jetsetting around the globe, and shred the Constitution, but as long as Martin is given stuff taken from others, Obama is the man.
Porterincollingswood January 14, 2013 at 01:50 AM
Oh, and while I plan our next trip to Utah (where, shocker, Obama was shut out in a few areas comprised of older white wealthy Mormons) to investigate fraud there - have you gotten to the bottom of all those made-up polls that came out prior to the election?
Joe January 14, 2013 at 02:51 AM
@porter - it must be difficult having to defend the worst, most inept president this country has ever seen, but I must give you credit for your bunker-like attitude. Forgot to mention the fact that Obama has racked up more debt than all previous presidents combined, went to bed upon hearing that an American ambassador was murdered, poured $500 million into Solyndra, gave away billions to his union buddies through the so-called "stimulus" and real unemployment still hovers around 14% - wow, I'm exhausted so I'll stop there. Oops, one more - 49 million on food stamps. Ok, one more welfare is now the single largest line item in the federal budget. No wonder the Democrats have to cheat to win - what a record!
Joe Taxpayer January 14, 2013 at 03:42 AM
Porterincollingswood 8:22 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013 "Taxes did not peak in 2007, what a joke. Learn something, we're all paying for it." They didn't? OMB must have their facts wrong then. How's this for a nice summary? 2007 all time high revenues. Source as noted OMB http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012/the-federal-budget-1992-2012
Porterincollingswood January 14, 2013 at 12:48 PM
My post was that tax rates have declined since JFK. And you can check that. That's absolutely true, it's a point I have made many many times on this site and no one has ever addressed it. If you are talking to me about volume of non-inflation adjusted dollars, that's not apples:apples. I'd just then point out that revenues were high in 2007 because GDP was high in 2007, but of course we know that economic scenario was built on a unsustainable house of cards and a housing bubble the crashed. And fueled by massive debt - both consumer and government - that haunts us to this day. And as for the other point, I'm not sure that you'd disagree that spending - based on every 4 year increments - has been flat to up. Probably increased every year.
Porterincollingswood January 14, 2013 at 12:52 PM
Joe, I'm not going to waste more time on you. Because no matter what facts or offered, you'll tune right back in to Fox and Limbaugh, and it will be all be for naught. And I want you to watch what your party does to Christie in 2016 - when they smear and destroy him so that some ideological pure unelectable clown can get trounced by Biden or Clinton. Maybe we can catch up then. And you know how you can tell Romney got trounced in an epic way? Because he didn't win a single state that Gindrich wouldn't have. He didn't win a single state YOU wouldn't have. I'm sorry you aren't doing well and struggling, and hope better times are ahead for you.
Porterincollingswood January 14, 2013 at 12:55 PM
And, Joe, I have to leave anyway because it's tax day tomorrow and I need to get that stuff in. But you wouldn't know about that, would you? Because you get a handout tomorrow from your employer. They're taking care of half your payments. But I'm the moocher and you are the self-reliant capotalist. Suuuuuuuuuure.
Joe Taxpayer January 14, 2013 at 01:36 PM
@Porter, I would agree that generally speaking marginal rates have come down and the outcome has been higher revenues. Even JFK advocated for lower tax rates back when there were still decent Democrats. Isn't the economy today fueled by massive debt - up $6B since BO was inaugurated & projected to grow to $25T next 10 years along with Fed Reserve money printing? The Federal Gov borrowed 293 billion in the first 3 mos of FY2013 budget. Ever look at the Federal Budget? 2004 spending - $2.29T 2008 spending - $2.98T 2012 spending - $3.6T Sustained spending in 2012 was 50% higher than 2004 levels and 20% higher than 2008 (not one time items like Stimulus). Flat? Now that's funny Source OMB Table 1.3
Porterincollingswood January 14, 2013 at 02:02 PM
Joe - again, flat to up when you look at 4 year increments since the 1950's. And the top tax rate were 95% under Ike. Think it went down to 65% under JFK. Down to 50% under Reagan. My focus is not to put people down (the Jesse Pinkman guy above being an exception). What I try to illustrate in all of my posts is a simple fact - things are they way they are because everyone, in some way, wanted them that way. So we have tax rates down almost every administration (sometimes by huge margins) with slight exceptions (Bush I, Clinton, now Obama). All the while, your costs were increasing as the Boomers aged and a large % of the population began to use gov't services. The cost of those services, by the way, were skyrocketing the whole time. So the answer was borrowing. My question is this - what other outcome was there? How were we not supposed to end up here with huge debt? And now, having bankrupted the country and consistently voted to expand the benefits they now enjoy, the older citizens of this nation are asking the younger ones to write of their expectations about social security and medicare. Despite that fact that we're paying payroll taxes too. And the future must be debt driven because no tax increase will pass the House. So, again, how is it supposed to be any other way than it is? This is what voters have voted for since 1980 at least.
Joe Taxpayer January 14, 2013 at 02:16 PM
A 50% increase in spending is flat? Spending more than you earn isn't the cause of deficits? WOW! In 2022, the Fed budget projects spending at $6T which I guess to you will be flat from $3.8T today yet revenues will never be close. Right, it's a revenue problem JFK wanted lower taxes. Not higher spending. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU
patrick January 14, 2013 at 02:21 PM
Joe and John Q Public, please educate yourselves. The demographics don't support your statements. People with a college degree trend democrat. People that receive gov't subsidies vote republican. That's a fact. republican=stupid
Joe R January 14, 2013 at 02:26 PM
JFK/LBJ lowered the top marginal tax rate from 91% to about 74%. Great let's have a top marginal tax rate of 74%.
Porterincollingswood January 14, 2013 at 02:32 PM
Joe, you are misquoting the post you are responding to. Repeatedly. At this point, I have to think that it is intentional. Oh, well. So much for a constructive dialogue between two people. Have a good one.
patrick January 14, 2013 at 02:35 PM
Joe, your quoting a facist think-tank to support your arguement. In my latest copy of MAD Magazine, it says republicans are stupid.
patrick January 14, 2013 at 02:44 PM
Qick history lesson, progressive tax regulations are a keycomponent to a democracy. If a small percentage of the population controls the wealth, then this small percentage control the power. It's called a revolution. Please educate yourselves. This is class warfare and many progressives admit to that. We need to fix the policies that led to this wealth disparity. If you think the "rich" people earned it, that's not true. 62% of people worth over 5 million in assests inheherited their money(very anti-american). I want to pass on my accumulated wealth to my children, but it should be heavily taxed, not given a tax-free loophole. republican=stupid
The Jestor January 17, 2013 at 07:50 PM
patrick: "I want to pass on my accumulated wealth to my children, but it should be heavily taxed, not given a tax-free loophole." WHY? Why should the government have a right to take your stuff simply because you died? They can't confiscate your property while you are alive (without due process), why should that change just because you kicked the bucket? And you trust them to redistribute the wealth they confiscate in a fair way! Lots of luck with that, pal.
Bill January 17, 2013 at 10:29 PM
@ patrick, not according to this CNN exit poll. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president The education factor is basically even. Other then HS dropouts. 64% vote dem. As do the majority of poor. This exit poll after the 2010 HoR elections shows majority of educated (beyond HS) voting republican. Again, the HS dropouts vote dem, as do the poor. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/07/weekinreview/20101107-detailed-exitpolls.html It's ok. Go look at the piece of paper that tells you you're smart. You'll feel better. I'll just go count my money.
Bill January 17, 2013 at 10:48 PM
"I want to pass on my accumulated wealth to my children, but it should be heavily taxed, not given a tax-free loophole" Only a person with no money would be stupid enough to write that.
Monk January 17, 2013 at 10:49 PM
patrick, you're premise seems to be that the economy is a zero-sum game, that the gain of one is the loss of another. But many economic situations are not zero-sum. Taxes are not referred to as "burdens" for nothing. Taxes burden the economy. Taking money from someone prevents them from investing or spending it, which reduces employment opportunities. Allowing the government to mediate the transfer of money among citizens is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Progressive tax regulations are nowhere near as key a component to a democracy as education is. If half this nation thinks being dependent on the government makes for a healthy, sustainable economy, we obviously have a serious education problem.
John Q. Public January 17, 2013 at 11:14 PM
You can buy into PA tax-free mutual funds at Vanguard, and you don't have to be rich to do it. Also, where did you learn that the average American is paying a 65% to 75% tax rate. All my taxes combined do not equal 75%.
fed up January 18, 2013 at 12:07 AM
WOW! I want to pass on my accumulated wealth to my children, but it should be heavily taxed, not given a tax free loophole. Patrick=STUPID. My children will get every penny i have. How about that liberal moron.
fed up January 18, 2013 at 01:48 AM


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something