FedScoop40%

IT cuts led to delays in IRS’s processing of paper returns, GAO finds 42%

By mbracken56%

8/10/2026, 2:24:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Unattributed Quote, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 20.4% saturation with 103 hits. Analysis detected 709 faulty-reasoning hits from 504 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38% and a BS Rank of 42% (18,422 of 31,632 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 58.20% of the article peer group.

Taxpayers felt a slowdown in the IRS’s processing of paper returns this filing season due in part to a reduction in experienced IT acquisition staff, according to a watchdog report released Monday. 
Despite a 19% year-over-year decrease in the number of paper returns it received, the tax agency processed 46% fewer individual paper returns and 80% fewer business paper returns over the same time period, the Government Accountability Office found. 
A March report from the watchdog predicted the delays, flagging that the agency’s “critical systems for processing and scanning paper tax documents would be unavailable at the start of the 2026 filing season and that IRS would rely on vendors to mitigate the issue.” 
Per IRS officials, the system to process individual paper returns was unavailable for the first six weeks of 2026, while the scanning system for business paper returns was out of commission for the entirety of the most recent filing season. 
“They told us that these systems were not ready for the filing season start due to the recent loss of experienced IT acquisition staff, which delayed the timely submission of procurement requirements needed to implement programming updates for the new tax law changes and transition to disbursing refunds only through digital payment options (e.g., direct deposit),” the GAO wrote. 
The IRS’s IT department has shrunk 42% since the beginning of the second Trump administration, according to a June report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. 
With the outflux of IT professionals, the IRS “sent more inventory than planned” to vendors it tapped to scan paper returns, which the GAO noted was part of the agency’s overarching digitization strategy. 
The IRS sent 3.7 million business paper returns to outside vendors alone, a 725% year-over-year jump. 
Vendors ended up processing more than four times the number of business paper returns than agency staff, the report stated. 
Overall, the IRS labored through the 2026 filing season with a submission processing unit 18% smaller than what it was in 2025; officials told the GAO they would “continue to hire and onboard new staff into May 2026.” 
“As a result of these challenges, IRS took longer to process paper returns,” the report said, adding that although average processing time in 2026 was down from the COVID-impacted 2021 and 2022 seasons, “it exceeded IRS’s policy to process individual paper returns within 13 working days.” 
The GAO’s findings throw some cold water on Frank Bisignano’s braggadocio about the agency’s 2026 performance; the IRS CEO told Senate Finance Committee members in April that technology paved the way for the  most successful filing season  in history. 
The IRS did continue its trend of pushing taxpayers toward electronic filing, with roughly 98% of individual returns and more than 84% of business returns filed digitally. 
And the agency’s online self-service tools saw surging rates of usage. 
The IRS’s “Where’s My Refund?” 
tool, for example, experienced a 9% uptick in visits (317 million) from 2025. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%mbracken: 2.0%FedScoop: 1.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 1.5%FedScoop: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%mbracken: 3.6%FedScoop: 1.9%Availability Heuristic6.3%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.3%FedScoop: 0.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.5%FedScoop: 0.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 3.8%FedScoop: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 5.1%FedScoop: 3.7%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.7%FedScoop: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.4%mbracken: 1.2%FedScoop: 0.4%Status Quo Bias5.4%This article: 6.5%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect6.5%This article: 7.5%mbracken: 2.1%FedScoop: 2.2%Optimism Bias7.5%This article: 2.6%mbracken: 0.6%FedScoop: 0.8%Pessimism Bias2.6%This article: 20.4%mbracken: 4.5%FedScoop: 7.2%Negativity Bias20.4%This article: 8.1%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%mbracken: 0.3%FedScoop: 0.4%Halo Effect2.2%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%mbracken: 0.9%FedScoop: 0.5%Recency Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.4%Ad Hominem8.1%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.2%FedScoop: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 2.3%FedScoop: 1.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 3.1%FedScoop: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.5%FedScoop: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.5%mbracken: 4.3%FedScoop: 2.4%Hasty Generalization7.5%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 1.3%FedScoop: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 1.8%FedScoop: 3.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 1.5%FedScoop: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.7%mbracken: 1.6%FedScoop: 0.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.7%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.5%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.0%Composition/Division6.5%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 1.8%FedScoop: 0.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.1%mbracken: 1.6%FedScoop: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.1%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.3%FedScoop: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.8%FedScoop: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.7%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.3%Unattributed Quote11.7%This article: 11.7%mbracken: 1.2%FedScoop: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection11.7%This article: 14.5%mbracken: 1.4%FedScoop: 1.4%Biased Writer Voice14.5%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 4.3%FedScoop: 1.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 0.0%FedScoop: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%mbracken: 1.0%FedScoop: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

504 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers53%attributed speech235writer words
88%flagged-word coverage
163 attributed words61% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Unattributed Quote+36.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Government Accountability Office: 36.2%36.2%Quote-first Misdirection+36.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Government Accountability Office: 36.2%36.2%Biased Writer Voice-31.1 ptsWriter: 31.1%Government Accountability Office: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.