Uh oh, they're not taking it "very seriously". Maybe they'll actually have some kind of solution.

Isn't there a problem in that the fed doesn't recognize the few states that managed to get marriages allowed w/o the public voting?

All they had to do was re-word the error message and they could have avoided the hubbub - but knowing the bastion of freedom and tolerance that is KC, I suspect there's a deeper issue.

Its probably because they don't have the forms programmed into their system. To say that this is a moral judgement by HRB is a little presumptive.

@jeffjohnvol: /agree. It's a process issue and not a judgement issue. Everyone needs to chill.

@Git Em SteveDave: I am assuming they were trying to file a Connecticut state return. All the major online and computer-based tax services allow you to file state returns as well as federal.

This could take significant work to program in the ability to manage these unions, and with all the last second federal gov't changes that effect nearly everyone, I'm sure they were just playing a numbers game.

There amount of people who were going to use H&R block and were apart of a civil union in Connecticut probably did not justify H&R block including the support for it up against a dead line.

Tax software is one of the few types of software that has a really hard deadline, and god forbid it has an error in it.

I'm sure they will support civil unions next year after this black mark.

I think they mean support as in "our website doesn't support Safari," not as in "I support Obama."

There are 47 or so different state forms they have to support, and I imagine they have a small team to handle changes. Like any software development projects, they probably ran out of time and had to prioritize. They probably evaluated their resources and the potential money they could make and made the decision to put that at the bottom of the list. It has to do with $$$, not homophobia.

Turbo Tax figured it out. So either H&R is incompetent or they are passing some sort of moral judgment.

Based on my past attempt to do my taxes with H&R's crappy software a few years ago I am voting for at least incompetent with a distinct possibility they are also passing a moral judgment.

@JustAGuy2: Exactly. It's like the difference between "free speech" and "free beer", not a moral judgement on same-sex couples.

@bohemian: Get a clue on how software development works.

Regardless its not a complete Tax Software for Connecticut and what about MA, NJ, or VT? I think you would have to investigate those states to see if the discrimination extends to those states of they just happened to forget/not have time for CT.

As it is, its an official CT Tax form that their competitors managed to include. So the least one can say is that the creators of TaxTurbo are more likely to be up to date with the lastest changes and thus prepare your taxes better.

As a Gay, I'm gonna go ahead and pull the gay card on this one. I doubt many of you would be so 'forgiving' had it been a federal form or other vital change in a state form. Their comptitor had time to include the tax law changes, and they should have as well. And you really don't have the luxury with Tax Software on picking and choosing what to finish.

I used to work for company that made accounting software, and I can tell you that it is extremely difficult to get all the major state/federal tax changes into the software.
It has been a while, but I seem to recall that the software companies get the final tax changes at the end of October - that means they only have 2 months to get tax software ready by January.

Like JustAGuy2 said - their "support" probably just means the software hasn't been updated in time to handle it.

Either that, or they just didn't feel the time and expense involved in updating the software to handle it wasn't worth it. I mean, seriously, how many gay civil unions are there in Conneticut :)

General Q here... not knowing the details of the Connecticut tax form, does it actually ask whether or not one is male or female (in order to make the conclusion that a joint return of two like-gendered persons = civil union)?

I just have never seen a checkbox anywhere on a tax form in any state I have ever lived in that asked whether I was M or F. Meaning, if I was gay and wanted to file jointly with a partner, why could I not simply attach any 2 SSNs (M&F, M&M, or F&F&) to the form and run with it? At what point in the process would the IRS deny a filing because it thought maybe you weren't legally 'married' (by whatever state-contrived definition)?

Along those lines, I never recalled having to send my marriage license to the IRS to prove to them I was married; one year I filed single, the next year joint. How would or does the IRS assume the same between unioned gays?

Poorly worded, I agree it probably means software support. Although it cracked me up that part of their justification is "our competitors have the same problems".

@Git Em SteveDave: People's basic rights - such as the right to have long-term relationships legally recognized - should never be up to the whims of voters.

In a hundred years, I imagine that our descendants will look back on the various anti-gay marriage initiatives and amendments of the past decade as a dark episode in American government. The legal institutions of democratic nations should protect the rights of minorities no matter what the majorities think of those minorities.

They will file returns for dwarves, whether they're scary or not...

@RokMartian: /agree 100%

So a privately owned company doesn't have the right to set its own policies on who it services?

If someone owns a restaurant, and wants to deny me service because I'm blonde, or white, or over 6 feet tall, they have EVERY FREAKIN' RIGHT to do so.

I may get really mad, and I may accuse them of discrimination, but unless they're some sort of government funded entity, they DON'T HAVE TO SERVE ME.

The same principle applies here.

I'll probably get banned for that.

Don't miss the point of the problem: &R Block doesn't have the same reputation or market as Turbo Tax, and as a software AND professional services company, changes are more expensive than just software. Moreover, they are professional services first, and software second.

Yes Turbo Tax got it in time for this year. Why? Because they work on their software every single year, because that's what they are. A software company. And that's it. Completeness and accuracy are tantamount of course, so testing and other QA are probably pushed every day. But they have no professional services staff. H&R Block does.

H&R Block is known more for their locations and walk-in service, so their priority in terms of change management favors that. Their software has the same risks and complexities that Turbo Tax does, but the company make a decision that the couldn't implement the change in time for 2007 taxes.

When different types of write-offs came out (e.g. hybrid cars), I'm sure not all tax institutions handled them on time.

So get over yourself (regardless of what the missing feature is in the software), and go somewhere else *cough* TurboTax.

One last thing: H&R Block could have been more specific in their verbiage:
- H&R Block does not support civil unions. OR
- H&R Block software does not yet support civil unions.
Tack on an apology for the inconvenience, maybe a suggestion to visit a brick'n'mortar H&R and we're done.

that's just dumb business.

@jeffjohnvol: Agreed. Not to mention the fact that for most people who work with computers (i.e. the guys who built the H&R site and supporting software) the use of the word 'support' refers not to a moral stance but rather physical possibility.

@LJKelley: A poor business decision doesn't necessarily amount to discrimination. I mean, I would probably be righteously pissed if I were gay too, but the upshot should be taking your business to a company that has updated their system to fill your needs. They don't offer the product you need, therefore they don't get your money. They may also lose the money of people who don't need that particular product but still find it objectionable that the company has clearly made it a low priority.

"And you really don't have the luxury with Tax Software on picking and choosing what to finish."

Why not? It's rather like suggesting that a grocery store doesn't have the luxury to not offer gluten-free baked goods. A certain percentage of the population will have a gluten intolerance, and if they want gluten-free pasta or cake mix they'll end up taking their business elsewhere, probably to a larger store that offers a wider selection of products. As a result, some of their family and friends will go with them, either for convenience or to support the business they see as better. Unfortunate though it may be for some consumers, it is within every company's right to decide which products they want to offer. It's not as though the first store is saying "no people with gluten intolerances may shop here", or as though H&R Block is simply refusing to do taxes for all gay people or even just gay people in civil unions/marriages. They've just decided that their profit margin is not benefited by offering a product that some people want or need. Rather than complain that it's not fair or right of them to not offer a product specifically targeted to a subset of a certain group of people, use your power as a consumer to show them that they've wrongly underestimated your demographic, and go to the business that does act like it wants your patronage.

@InfiniTrent: First, you are mistaken. That is the point of much civil and human rights legislation, that public accomodations (the restaurant in your example) cannot discriminate. Second, H&R Block has a right to say anything they want about civil unions, and Consumerist has the right to publish those comments, and I have the right to call those comments homophobic. Their behavior isn't illegal; it's just repugnant.

@sleze69: You assume it can't be BOTH a process issue and a judgment issue. The issue could be why they haven't spent the effort necessary to serve gay customers in Connecticut. They are the ones mocking TurboTax in an ad company. If they got so many people, why haven't they gotten this working yet? Its a question that merits asking.

@InfiniTrent: You should be banned for speculating that you will get banned for saying something. Its insufferable enough when people have a smug "Oooh, I'm so edgy!" attitude, but it gets taken to another level when they actually open their mouth and SAY, "Oooh, I'm so edgy!"

It probably is a process issue, not a judgment issue, but OTOH, if I'm taking my taxes to somebody, I expect them to be up on every single aspect of the process, including new changes in the tax laws -- say, like those affecting same-sex unions. If H&R Block isn't up to date on this, how can you trust their knowledge in any other area? It makes them look amateurish.

@BStu:
I wasn't saying it to be "edgy", I was speaking my mind.

My "I'll probably be banned" comment was made because the Editors above said that they think H&R Block's alleged "policy" is BS. Not to mention that making any comment that could be construed as unsupportive of "gay rights" is considered neanderthal and unenlightened.

@picardia: I agree with you. Vote with your dollar.

H&R Blockheads are from Kansas, so why should this surprise?

This is the same state that gave the world Fred PedoPhelps and his inbred cult/family, as well as a schoolboard that tried to outlaw evolution.

How much more embarassment can the majority of Kansans take?

@InfiniTrent: Not banned, I hope. Just mocked.

You are correct that a private business has every right to refuse to serve a customer (or community of customers), but they should at least be brave about their reasons and outline just exactly why they are discriminating against or are ill-equipped to serve segments of the population.

Our tax guy brought up the tax filing situation in our tax meeting last year. He's a true professional and was well-aware of California's law that passed requiring domestic partners to file their 2007 State taxes as if they were married even though the Fed will not recognize it. It was fully on his radar and when we met with him this year, he had everything mapped out and things went as smoothly as possible.

Incidentally, he's a rather conservative Republican although not in the fakey-neocon style that's emerged over the past several years - more like a Barry Goldwater. He fully disagrees with the feds attempting to trump states' rights and says it's only a matter of time before legal arrangements like domestic partnerships and civil unions must be fully recognized.

H&R Block did our taxes many years ago before the domestic partnership option was even there for us and even with that and the lower-complexity of our returns at the time, their service was very lacking. I understand some folks don't think they have another choice, but comparing what we used to pay for H&R Block against what we currently pay our taxman, they should really reconsider.

@InfiniTrent: You're response might as well have been, "I'm not trying to be edgy. I just am, man. Oooh, I'm so edgy. Nobody is going to like me 'cuz I'm speaking from the oppressed majority, but I don't care. I'm gonna stand up for conventional opinions, and no one is gonna stop me, man! Ooooh, I'm so edgy!"

@InfiniTrent: So a privately owned company doesn't have the right to set its own policies on who it services?

[...]

I was born and raised in Kansas City and have now lived on both coasts, several places in between and a couple of foreign countries.

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the general ignorance of geography by Americans even about their own country. I once had a (non immigrant) guy in Florida ask me if Missouri was near North Dakota where "Mount Rushmore is".

Fred Phelps nonwithstanding, Kansas City is in Missouri.

There is a Kansas City, Kansas, but I, none of the employees of HR Block, and, I strongly suspect, Fred Phelps would be caught dead there. It is, for all intents and purposes, a war zone.

It sounds like H&R needs someone to rewrite their system messages.

If someone owns a restaurant, and wants to deny me service because I'm blonde, or white, or over 6 feet tall, they have EVERY FREAKIN' RIGHT to do so.

@InfiniTrent: Wrong. They do not have the legal right to deny you service because you're white.

Didn't we already discuss this one? [consumerist.com]

@Git Em SteveDave:
I'm not sure what you mean by getting "marriages allowed w/o the public voting."

Civil unions are not marriages, for one thing. They're a creature of statute, which means the state legislatures mulled them over and then enacted them, as they would any law. That's how most laws are enacted in a representative democracy.

In any case, I don't think the H&R Blockhead thing is really discrimination. I think it's just a failure of an inferior service provider to implement particular software features that would only be used by a small number of filers. They'll eventually get around to it, I'm sure, and then CT citizens in civil unions, like the rest of us, will be able to overpay for crappy tax service. :-)

@Rey: "Not banned, I hope. Just mocked. You are correct that a private business has every right to refuse to serve a customer (or community of customers), but they should at least be brave about their reasons and outline just exactly why they are discriminating against or are ill-equipped to serve segments of the population."

I think you're right about people being upfront about their preferences in who they serve. However, I don't think that's what's going on here. It's bad phrasing that has spiraled into a ACLU circus.

H&R Block is interested in making a profit, not turning away customers. Barring some big internal conspiracy, I think this was just someone who wrote bad copy for the website, trying to indicate their programs

I'm not sure why you think I should be mocked - probably because I disagree with your opinions?

@BStu: Thanks for your opinion. You certainly know my motivations better than I.

.
You guys are being way too hard on H&R Block. After all, they said very straightforwardly that they "value every client."

(Kinda makes me wonder what value they've assigned to Connecticut domestic partners....)

The answer to whether this is a crappy policy or just a development problem could be solved is someone knew whether they'll help people in a civil union in person.

@KJones: "
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just poorly uninformed and not a bigot: Tax preparers are a government regulated entity."

Just as I suspected - the name calling and heavy insinuations against my mental capabilities ensue. Whoops, that was a little "edgy".

Despite your double negative ("poorly uninformed"?) I must disagree. You make a pretty good point, if the problem was that they simply wouldn't allow the deduction. It sounds like H&R Block effectively efused the business altogether because they weren't capable of processing the appropriate paperwork.

I choose to believe this is incompetence, not intentional discrimination. Most people here apparently think it's an intentional conspiracy.

@sophistiKate: You can call their decision homophobic just as I can call your argument incredibly stupid.

Can we shut off the italics now?

um, why would they be filing civil union returns? there's only three ways of filing - single, married separate, married jointly. civil union is two people considered single on a tax return. i'm not getting why this is h&r block's fault. the government is who did the limiting. h&r block is a national chain and they have standardized programs for this stuff. i live in ct and on my tax forms there was no option for "civil union" on my state form since it's not classified as a marriage.

this is one reason same sex marriage should be legal. stupid stupid stuff like this would be so much simpler.

As a programmer, I can MAYBE see the issue with having trouble supporting civil unions for state returns. Depending on the structure of the code, a civil union status might throw the rest of the system out of whack.

Maybe.

@Rectilinear Propagation: "Wrong. They do not have the legal right to deny you service because you're white."

Even assuming you're right, they don't have to give a reason they're denying service.

I suppose we're all debating semantics and opinion now, but why should that stop us? :)

@RandomHookup: "Can we shut off the italics now?"

Yeah, how did that happen?

@sleze69: Uhh, wanna bet the H&R Block computers' software are already updated to take into account the "rebate"? Which was implemented a month ago? Yet their piddly lil' programmers couldn't - in the five-odd years that domestic partners came into being - accommodate civil unions?
I smell bullsh*t.

Step 1: Use Turbotax (yay!). Or a non-chain tax preparer, feeding the local economy. H&R Block chooses to discriminate, we chose to flee them.
Step 2: Let's get marriage on a Federal level that doesn't discriminate in the books. This is absurd, and unfair. We "allow" mixed-race couples to enjoy the 3,000 tax benefits of marriage, when just a few generations past we didn't. We allow childless and infertile couples benefits. We don't retroactively take back the benefits of couples if they divorce.
Fair is fair.

@InfiniTrent: Please don't misunderstand me. I have no problem with folks who have differing opinions as long as they're steeped in some sort of logic.

I believe you should be mocked solely for thinking yourself quite the 'edgy' man and double-posting in an effort to have others come to that conclusion as well.

hmmm, i like knowing the tax software wasn't updated.

buttheads.