&

Findings

From The 2005 

Taxpayer Satisfaction Study

Presented To:

July 2005

Presented By: Publication 4241 (07/05)

Catalog No. 37303Q
2

&

Background, Purpose, Method, Scope & Timing

l Like previous waves of Taxpayer satisfact

research, this study was conducted by telepho

from Russell’s national field center in Wayne 

with interviewing this year occurring during t

period of April 16-May 31.

l The sample was structured as follows:

n First, we built a nationally-representative Rand

Sample of 1000 Taxpayers (all 18-74, employed, 

past-year tax filers). This Random Sample provided

n A representative base of e-file Users AND N

Users for analysis of overall measures;

n Enough Non-Users of each product to evalu

interest in products and dynamics of non-usage

n And a base of Users of each product which co

then be augmented to more stable levels 

reading satisfaction and diagnostic data.

n After completing the Random Sample, IRS lists w

used to augment Practitioner e-file Users and On-L

Filing Users each to the 500 level, and to augm

FreeFile Users to 200 (this is still a very small-ba

group and expensive to reach in a random natio

survey).

l Each year, the IRS conducts customer

satisfaction research among Taxpayers to:

n Track satisfaction with the main e-file products –

Practitioner e-file and Online Filing (including Free 

File), and secure product diagnostic information 

and ideas for product improvement.

n Track Non-User interest in the main products, and 

their reasons for non-use to this point.

n Capture User and Non-User perceptions of the 

level of IRS instruction related to e-file products. 

n And to measure the degree of ease/difficulty

Taxpayers have in communicating with the IRS.

l Results are analyzed in total and, where

appropriate, by...

n Current e-file Users, Lapsed Users (i.e., did not

use in 2005 but would consider using again),

Quitters (i.e., used in past but would not consider 

using again), and Non-Triers.

n By Return Type – we use the 4-group model (SelfSimple, Self-Complex, Paid-Simple, and PaidComplex), since the new 6-group model leaves 

about half the respondents unclassified. 

n And by V-Coders and Filing Behavior segments 

(ASAPs...Last Possible Minute).
&

Detailed Findings

Statistical Notation Used In Detailed Findings

Indicates current data are significantly higher than the

previous wave at a 95% confidence level. Or, when subgroups are being compared, the circle is used to indicate a 

significant difference between one group and the balance of 

the sample.

Indicates current data are significantly lower than the

previous wave at a 95% confidence level. Or, when subgroups are compared, the box indicates a significant

difference between one group and the balance of the sample.

Indicates a directional difference which doesn’t rise to the 

95% level of statistical significance, but is still notable.
&

Satisfaction With e-file Products 

& Product Diagnostics

Among Users Of Each Product
5

&

Practitioner e-file – User Satisfaction & Product Diagnostics

l First, results show continuing high

satisfaction with Practitioner e-file, with no

significant change in satisfaction ratings over 

the past year. 

80

17

2 1

78

18

2 2

77

17

4 2

83

14

2 1

82

15

1 1

 % Very 

Satisfied

% Somewhat

Satisfied

% Somewhat

Dissatisfied

% Very

Dissatisfied

2001 (n=502) 2002 (n=502) 2003 (n=504) 2004 (n=500) 2005 (n=500)

Satisfaction With Practitioner e-file – Historical Trend

l Looking at this product’s diagnostics in total 

and by readable sub-groups (table to the

right), we see that its strengths are the same 

as we’ve found in the past – speed, accuracy, 

and convenience. However, 35% of Users

still think it can be improved, mainly in terms 

of cost (especially the Paid-Simple filers).

Total ‘05 Paid 

Users Simple C

BASE: Total Users Of This Product 500 215 

% % 

% “Very Satisfied” With This Product 82 83 

Top Voluntary “Likes” Of Product Were...

Fast/quick 26 30 

Easy/convenient 20 23 

Quick refund/get your money faster 14 13 

They do the work – don’t have to do myself 10 7 

More accurate 7 8 

% Who Think Product Can Be Improved 35 39 

Top Suggestions For Improvement:

(New Base: Product Can Be Improved) (176) (84) 

Make it less expensive/cheaper 15 20 

Simplify it/make it easier 5 2 

Quick refund/get your money faster 5 6 

% Very Satisfied With Product:

(Base Varies By Attribute w/Total Answering For Each)

Being A Way To File Return Quickly 88 90 

Being An Accurate Way To File 86 88 

With Time It Took To Get A Refund 83 86 

Being Easy To Use/Little Hassle 83 88 

Compared To Other Filing Methods 80 82 

Being Private And Secure 78 79 

Being Able To Pay Electronically 77 82 

Being An Inexpensive Way To File 46 53 

Practitioner e-file Product Diagnostics
6

&

Online Filing – User Satisfaction & Product Diagnostics

l When we look at User ratings of the group of 

Online Filing products, we also find high

ratings consistent with past tracking.

83

13

3 1

85

14

1 1

81

18

0 0

81

17

1 1

80

17

3 1

 % Very 

Satisfied

% Somewhat

Satisfied

% Somewhat

Dissatisfied

% Very

Dissatisfied

2001 (n=501) 2002 (n=502) 2003 (n=497) 2004 (n=526) 2005 (n=500)

Satisfaction With Total Online Filing – Historical Trend

l Online Filing’s strengths are also speed, 

accuracy, and convenience, but these

products have about half of their Users

saying they can be improved – mainly by

making them easier and less costly, with cost 

a clearly apparent weakness in the product

attribute ratings (especially among Self -

Complex filers).

Total ‘05 Self 

Users Simple C

BASE: Total Users Of This Product 500 190 

% % 

% “Very Satisfied” With This Product 80 81 

Top Voluntary “Likes” Of Product Were...

Easy/convenient 32 32 

Fast/quick 20 21 

Quick refund/get your money faster 9 11 

More accurate 9 11 

% Who Think Product Can Be Improved 52 48 

Top Suggestions For Improvement:

(New Base: Product Can Be Improved) (262) (91) 

Make it easier 10 12 

Make it less expensive/cheaper 9 11 

Have more help/advice/suggestions 7 7 

Make it free 6 2 

% Very Satisfied With Product:

(Base Varies By Attribute w/Total Answering For Each)

Being A Way To File Return Quickly 89 89 

With Time It Took To Get A Refund 83 82 

Compared To Other Filing Methods 82 85 

Being An Accurate Way To File 82 82 

Being Able To Pay Electronically 78 82 

Being Private And Secure 76 82 

Being Easy To Use/Little Hassle 76 82 

Being An Inexpensive Way To File 58 65 

Total Online Filing Product Diagnostics
7

&

Online Filing With An Online Company – Satisfaction & Product Diagnostics

l Breaking out 3 OLF products, we find that

one of them, Online Filing With An Online

Company, is trending downward in

satisfaction.

83

16

0 0

80

17

2 1

75

18

6

1

 % Very 

Satisfied

% Somewhat

Satisfied

% Somewhat

Dissatisfied

% Very

Dissatisfied

2003 (n=91) 2004 (n=102) 2005 (n=80)

Satisfaction With OLF w/Online Company – Historical Trend

l While this product is considered fast,

convenient, and accurate, it also has a 

remarkable number of Users (63%) who say 

it can be improved in terms of cost. (Note: 

bases here are too small for sub-group 

analysis.)

Total ‘05

Users

BASE: Total Users Of This Product 80

%

% “Very Satisfied” With This Product 75

Top Voluntary “Likes” Of Product Were...

Easy/convenient 28

Fast/quick 16

Quick refund/get your money faster 11

More accurate 10

% Who Think Product Can Be Improved 63

Top Suggestions For Improvement:

(New Base: Product Can Be Improved) (50)

Make it less expensive/cheaper/make it free 20

Make it more user friendly 6

Make it easier 6

Improve the clarity of instructions 6

Make the entire process quicker 6

% Very Satisfied With Product:

(Base Varies By Attribute w/Total Answering For Each)

Being A Way To File Return Quickly 84

With Time It Took To Get A Refund 79

Being An Accurate Way To File 79

Being Private And Secure 77

Compared To Other Filing Methods 75

Being Easy To Use/Little Hassle 73

Being Able To Pay Electronically 72

Being An Inexpensive Way To File 45

OLF w/Online Company Product Diagnostics
8

&

Online Filing With Software – User Satisfaction & Product Diagnostics

l Looking at Online Filing With Software, we

find that satisfaction ratings have remained

stable and high over the past 3 years.

80

18

0 0

82

17

1 0

80

17

2 1

 % Very 

Satisfied

% Somewhat

Satisfied

% Somewhat

Dissatisfied

% Very

Dissatisfied

2003 (n=381) 2004 (n=400) 2005 (n=374)

Satisfaction With OLF With Software – Historical Trend

l This product is also strong in terms of speed, 

convenience, and accuracy, but half of its

Users suggest improvements – with SelfSimple filers focusing more on improved ease 

of use while Self-Complex filers focus more

on improved cost of use.

Total ‘05 Self 

Users Simple C

BASE: Total Users Of This Product 374 122 

% % 

% “Very Satisfied” With This Product 80 84 

Top Voluntary “Likes” Of Product Were...

Easy/convenient 32 32 

Fast/quick 19 18 

More accurate 9 9 

Provides a quick refund/get your money faster 8 9 

Lets you keep records from past years 7 4 

% Who Think Product Can Be Improved 50 45 

Top Suggestions For Improvement:

(New Base: Product Can Be Improved) (188) (55) 

Make it easier 10 15 

Make it less expensive/cheaper/make it free 16 13 

More help/advice/suggestions 8 7 

% Very Satisfied With Product:

(Base Varies By Attribute w/Total Answering For Each)

Being A Way To File Return Quickly 90 91 

Compared To Other Filing Methods 84 87 

With Time It Took To Get A Refund 83 83 

Being An Accurate Way To File 83 83 

Being Able To Pay Electronically 78 85 

Being Easy To Use/Little Hassle 76 84 

Being Private And Secure 75 82 

Being An Inexpensive Way To File 55 64 

OLF With Software Product Diagnostics
9

&

Total ‘05 Self 

Users Simple C

BASE: Total Users Of This Product 200 109 

% % 

% “Very Satisfied” With This Product 82 85 

Top Voluntary “Likes” Of Product Were...

Easy/convenient 37 34 

No cost/fee involved 29 28 

Fast/quick 23 21 

Quick refund/get your money faster 14 15 

Easy instructions/help 6 5 

Step-by-step instructions 6 6 

% Who Think Product Can Be Improved 49 42 

Top Suggestions For Improvement:

(New Base: Product Can Be Improved) (98) (46) 

Make it easier to use/understand/navigate 13 13 

Improve the clarity of instructions 7 9 

Make the process quicker 6 7 

% Very Satisfied With Product:

(Base Varies By Attribute w/Total Answering For Each)

Being An Inexpensive Way To File 93 96 

With Time It Took To Get A Refund 89 83 

Being A Way To File Return Quickly 88 94 

Being An Accurate Way To File 88 90 

Being Private And Secure 88 90 

Compared To Other Filing Methods 85 91 

Being Able To Pay Electronically 79 86 

Being Easy To Use/Little Hassle 75 83 

Free File Product Diagnostics

FreeFile OLF – User Satisfaction & Product Diagnostics

l Finally for the OLF products, Free File had

about the same high satisfaction ratings as

we’ve seen in the past.

83

15

3

0

82

14

3 2

82

16

2 1

 % Very 

Satisfied

% Somewhat

Satisfied

% Somewhat

Dissatisfied

% Very

Dissatisfied

2003 (n=100) 2004 (n=200) 2005 (n=200)

Satisfaction With Free File – Historical Trend

l This product is generally rated higher than

the other e-file products on attributes. But it 

has a weakness among Taxpayers with more 

complex returns -- difficulty in use. Its SelfComplex Users are far more likely (than Self -

Simples) to suggest improvements in Free

File and they rate the product significantly

lower on “Being Easy To Use/Little Hassle”.
10

&

29

16

5

2003 2004 2005

5 5 4 1 2

21

62

93

Paper Any 

e-file

 Free

File

OLF

w/

Software

OLF

w/OL

Company

Practr

e-file

 Tele 

File

Don't

Recall

91

91

95

% Of Users

Who Will

Use FreeFile

Again

(n=200)

2005

2004

2003

FreeFile OLF – Additional Diagnostics

l In other Free File diagnostics, the proportion 

of Users using e-file for the first time

dropped again, which indicates that Free File 

is drawing more and more from users of

other e-file products. We confirmed this by 

looking at filing method used in 2004, which 

showed that 93% of Free File Users had used 

e-file before – 62% of them being repeat

Free File Users, with the rest coming mainly 

from Online Filing With Software.

Total ‘03 Total ’04 T

Users Users 

BASE: Total Users Of This Product 100 200 

% % 

Total Word-Of-Mouth 41 41 

From Family/Spouse 18 13 

From Friends 14 20 

From Co-Workers/Colleagues 6 3 

Word of Mouth (Unspecified) 6 4 

Total Internet/irs.gov Mentions 34 30 

Other Mentions:

Something That Came In The Mail 7 6 

From A Flyer/Pamphlet/Booklet 7 6 

From Tax Forms/Publications 4 5 

Newspaper 3 2 

Sources Of Awareness Of Free File

l In line with the high satisfaction ratings, 95% 

Users said they would use Free File again.

l Top sources for first learning about Free F

were again Word-Of-Mouth and Internet/irs.g

Planned Re-Use Of Free File

% Of Free 

File Users 

Saying 

They Had efiled For 

The First 

Time

Where Free File Users 

Are Coming From --

Filing Method Used In 

Previous Year (2004)
11

&

Finally Among Users: How Deep Is User Commitment To Each Product?

l With the addition of the “would recommend”

measure last year, we can gauge the level of 

commitment to each product among its Users 

by comparing the proportion who are “very 

satisfied” with the proportion who say they

would “recommend the product to a friend”.

l We can also average the two results and

develop a “User Commitment Score”, which

shows that...

n The products which are strongest in this scoring 

are Online Filing With Software (with an 86% 

User Commitment Score, same as last year) and 

Free File (also 86%, but up in 2005).

n The product with the lowest score is Online Filing 

With An Online Company (74% this year, down 

from 81% last year). Recall that this method 

had a particularly high number of Users

complaining about its cost.

n Practitioner e-file was off slightly in this measure 

compared to last year (dropping from a User

Commitment Score of 84% to 82%).

83

82

80

75

82

80

82

82

81

81

80

73

90

92

91

82

93

92

83

86

Practitioner e-file 2004

Practitioner e-file 2005

Total Online Filing 2004

Total Online Filing 2005

OLF w/OL Company 2004

OLF w/OL Company 2005

OLF w/Software 2004

OLF w/Software 2005

Free File 2004

Free File 2005

Very Satisfied

Would Recommend

Very Satisfied

Would Recommend

Very Satisfied

Would Recommend

Very Satisfied

Would Recommend

Very Satisfied

Would Recommend

Very Satisfied

Would Recommend

Very Satisfied

Would Recommend

Very Satisfied

Would Recommend

Very Satisfied

Would Recommend

Very Satisfied

Would Recommend

% Very Satisfied vs. % Would Recommend

84

82

86

86

81

74

86

86

81

86

Use

Commit

Sco
&

Interest In e-file Products & 

Other Non-Usage Measures

Among Non-Users Of e-file
13

&

Non-User Interest In Use Of e-file Products

l On a split sample basis, we exposed NonUsers in the Random Sample to a concept for 

one of the e-file products (Practitioner e-file, 

Online Filing, and Free File) and asked them 

their interest in trying the product, their

perceptions of what using it would be like, 

and reasons for non-use.

n Note that Online Filing With Software and Online 

Filing With An Online Company were both

described as part of a single “Online Filing”

concept presented to Non-Users.

19

33

26 21 16

35

29

20 20

35

22 21 16

35

22 27

18

28 23

29

Very Likely Somewhat Likely Not Very Likely Not At All Likely

2001 (n=312) 2002 (n=274) 2003 (n=172) 2004 (n=149) 2005 (n=135)

Non-User Likelihood Of Use – Historical Trends

Practitioner e-file

15

34

19

32

14

36

25 24

14

37

20

30

16

32

20

29

14

24 26

35

Very Likely Somewhat Likely Not Very Likely Not At All Likely

2001 (n=293) 2002 (n=265) 2003 (n=169) 2004 (n=147) 2005 (n=126)

Online Filing

32 28

19 21 18

34

18

30

16

30

24 29

Very Likely Somewhat Likely Not Very Likely Not At All Likely

2001 (n=na) 2002 (n=na) 2003 (n=164) 2004 (n=160) 2005 (n=140)

Free File

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

l Looking at Non-User interest in use of each 

product, we find only minor differences vs. 

2004 in the proportion saying they are “very 

likely” to try each product. However, there 

were directional decreases in the number

who were “somewhat likely” to try and 

corresponding increases in the number who 

were “not very” or “not at all” likely to try.

l This may indicate a hardening of resistance

to e-file among remaining Non-Users.
14

&

Non-User Perceptions Of e-file Products

l We analyzed Non-User perceptions of each

product by those Likely To Use each product 

(Potential Acceptors) vs. those Not Likely To

Use (Resisters). This tells us strengths to

capitalize on, and weaknesses to address,

among both groups. 

n Four attributes stand out as positives among

Potential Acceptors of all three products – and in 

this general hierarchy of importance...

u Way To Get Refund Faster

u Way To File Return Quickly

u Able To Pay Electronically

u An Accurate Way To File

n Those four attributes are also generally the four

best rated attributes among Resisters.

n Three attributes stand out as negatives among

Resisters of all three products – in this order of 

importance...

u Better Than Other Filing Methods

u Private And Secure Way To File

u Easy To Use/Little Hassle

u In addition, “Cost” is a barrier for Practitioner 

e-file and Online Filing (but is a strength, of 

course, for Free File).

No

Very/SW No

Likely 

Total To Use T

Non- Potential

Users Acceptors R

Practitioner e-file BASE: Varies By Attribute % % 

% Agree Completely That Product:

Would Be A Way To Get Refund Faster 59 68 

Would Be A Way To File Return Quickly 57 67 

Would Be Able To Pay Electronically 56 60 

Would Be An Accurate Way To File 44 58 

Would Be Easy To Use/Little Hassle 43 54 

Would Be A Private And Secure Way To File 40 50 

Would Be An Inexpensive Way To File 28 43 

Would Be Better Than Other Filing Methods 21 35 

Online Filing BASE: Varies By Attribute % % 

% Agree Completely That Product:

Would Be A Way To File Return Quickly 58 78 

Would Be A Way To Get Refund Faster 55 78 

Would Be Able To Pay Electronically 52 64 

Would Be An Accurate Way To File 44 68 

Would Be An Inexpensive Way To File 32 50 

Would Be Easy To Use/Little Hassle 23 37 

Would Be A Private And Secure Way To File 21 33 

Would Be Better Than Other Filing Methods 16 28 

Free File BASE: Varies By Attribute % % 

% Agree Completely That Product:

Would Be A Way To File Return Quickly 66 81 

Would Be An Inexpensive Way To File 66 77 

Would Be Able To Pay Electronically 62 74 

Would Be A Way To Get Refund Faster 60 77 

Would Be An Accurate Way To File 47 67 

Would Be A Private And Secure Way To File 39 66 

Would Be Easy To Use/Little Hassle 38 52 

Would Be Better Than Other Filing Methods 24 44 

Non-User Perceptions Of e-file Products
15

&

No

Very/SW No

Likely L

Total To Use T

Non- Potential

Users Acceptors Re

Practitioner e-file BASE: Aware Before Interview 120 58 

% % 

Prefer to do it myself 22 14 

Cost too much – do not want to pay someone 16 12 

Prefer the traditional/paper method 9 3 

Prefer a tax preparer/accountant 5 7 

Online Filing BASE: Aware Before Interview 108 42 

% % 

No access to PC 17 12 

Prefer a tax preparer/accountant 11 5 

Prefer the traditional/paper method 10 12 

Security issues/not comfortable with it 7 2 

Habit/always done it the same way - comfortable 5 5 

Free File BASE: Aware Before Interview 62 26 

% % 

Don’t trust Free File/online filing 19 12 

Prefer a tax preparer/accountant 17 8 

Internet privacy/security concerns 13 4 

Don’t know enough about it – lack of knowledge 7 15 

Insufficient/confusing instructions 6 8 

Habit/always done it the same way - comfortable 6 4 

Non-User Voluntary Reasons For Non-Use Of e-file Products

l We asked any Non-User who was previously 

aware of a product that they evaluated to tell 

us, in their own words, why they were not

using it. 

l While the bases of those previously aware

were limited (especially when we break

responses by Potential Acceptors vs.

Resisters), we can see from their voluntary

responses that top reasons for non-use were 

as follows:

n For Practitioner e-file, top reasons related to

preferring self-preparation and not wanting to 

pay a Practitioner.

n For Online Filing, main mentions were not having 

access to a computer, preferring paid

preparation, and preferring paper filing.

n And, for Free File, top reasons were not trusting 

it, preferring paid preparation, concern about its 

privacy/security, and – for Potential Acceptors –

not knowing enough about it.

Voluntary Reasons For Non-Use Of e-file Products
16

&

For Free File Non-Users: Whether Attempted To Use Product Or Not

l In addition to the foregoing Non-User 

measures, we asked Non-Users of Free File

about any failed attempts to use the product 

for tax filing in 2005.

l We found that only 8% had attempted to use 

Free File but abandoned it – this was exactly 

the same level we found on this question

when we asked it in 2004.

l 8% in this case means there were only 5

people each year who attempted but did not 

complete a Free File filing. Looking at their 

reasons for non-completion, we see that it

included the process being too timeconsuming, too difficult, not being free after 

all, not being able to get onto the website,

and concern about privacy/security.

2005 

Total 

Non- 

Users 

BASE: Total Exposed To Product

Who Were Aware Of Product Prior To The Interview 62 

% 

% Who Attempted To Use Free File In 2005 8 

Reasons For Non-Completion Of Return Using Free File

NEW BASE: Attempted To Use Free File 5 

# 

Too time consuming 1 

Too difficult 1 

It was not free – tried to make me pay 1 

Couldn’t get onto the website 1 

Concern about the security/privacy 1 

I didn’t qualify 0 

Don’t Know 1 

Other Free File Measures
17

&

Are Practitioners Offering e-file To Non-Users?

l Non-Users who had gone to a Preparer and 

filed by paper were asked whether their

Preparer had offered them the opportunity to 

e-file. 

l 55% of Non-Users said they use a Paid

Preparer (about the same as in 2004) and...

l Among these, 41% said they were offered efile, but turned it down – which was a slight 

increase over the 35% of 2004 and a

significant increase over the 31% of 2003.

l Summarizing the trend here, the chart to the 

right shows that as the proportion of NonUsers using a Practitioner holds steady, the

number of Practitioners offering e-file to 

Non-Users is increasing – which may indicate 

that IRS marketing efforts to Practitioners

are having an impact. 

Non-Users’ Use Of Paid Practitioners

And Whether Practitioner Offered Them e-file

48

31

54

35

55

41

 Among All Non-Users: 

% Used A Paid Practitioner

 Among Non-Users Usin

Paid Practitioners: % Sa

Practitioner Offered Them e

But They Turned It Dow

2003 Non-Users 2004 Non-Users 2005 Non-Users

(n=505) (n=456) (n=401) (n=281) (n=248) (n=222)
&

IRS Communication

& Other Issues

Among All Taxpayers –

Both Users & Non-Users
19

&

Feedback On IRS e-file Product Instruction (Among All e-file Triers)

l Anyone having tried e-file was asked about

the general level of “instruction” IRS 

provides for electronic filing. 

l In terms of the level of detail in instructions, 

about 40-50% of triers did not know enough 

to give a rating. Those who did tended to

split between rating IRS instructions as

“about right” or “too detailed”, with the few 

Quitters here being the most likely to say

instructions are too detailed. Only a minority 

in each case felt there was not enough detail.

l What can IRS do to improve instructions? In 

line with the lack of knowledge above, about 

half of the triers had no suggestions. Those 

who did focused heavily IRS making

instructions “simpler” and “clearer”.

l And how should IRS deliver these 

instructions? Mainly in the form of materials 

and brochures delivered by mail and by

making instructions available on websites.

Current

e-file Lapsed 

Users Users Q

BASE: Total Ever Tried e-file 599 106 

% % 

Rating Level Of Detail In Instructions:

Too Detailed (Net) 22 23 

Much too detailed-didn’t even use it 9 13 

Generally too detailed but able to navigate thru it 13 9 

Was About Right & Found It Helpful 26 24 

Not Detailed Enough (Net) 10 6 

Not detailed enough, but was able to finish return 5 5 

Was entirely too vague/was no help at all 4 1 

Don’t Know 43 48 

What IRS Can Do To Improve Instructions?

(BASE: Total Ever Tried e-file Who Rated Instructions) 343 55 

% % 

Total With Suggestions For Improving Instructions 50 58 

Simplify/make things clearer 33 45 

Use simple/less technical/plain English wording 8 7 

Simplify things 8 11 

Make things clearer 6 7 

How IRS Should Deliver Instructions?

Send printed materials/brochures via mail 44 42 

Make instructions available online 29 30 

Send email 12 9 

Send with IRS forms/instructions 11 15 

Advertise them 4 6 

Feedback On IRS Instructions For e-file
20

&

Communicating With The IRS (Among All Taxpayers)

Total ‘05 e-file N

Taxpayers Users U

BASE: Total Respondents 1000 599 

% % 

% Rating Communicating w/IRS As...

Very/SW Difficult 35 35 

Not Very/Not At All Difficult 38 36 

DK/Never Tried 27 29 

Complaints BASE: Total Consider It Difficult 351 207 

% % 

Long waits/put on hold too long 35 37 

The process just takes too long 12 14 

Lines automated/can’t get a real person 18 21 

Too many different people get involved 11 11 

Hard to get knowledgeable responses 11 11 

Compliments BASE: DO NOT Consider It Difficult 369 214 

% % 

Customer svc reps helpful/did their job 36 35 

It was an easy/quick process 15 12 

Their website is helpful 7 7 

They provide a hotline/hotline’s helpful 7 7 

No problems/no complaints about them 10 9 

Diagnostics Of Communicating With The IRS

l e-file Users and Non-Users had similar ratings 

communicating with the IRS, and similar reaso

for their ratings. In both cases, the m

complaints were about long waits a

automated lines and the main compliments w

for helpful customer service reps.

l We asked ALL Taxpayers in the survey to rate 

the difficulty of communicating with the IRS 

and found that about one-fourth never try to 

communicate.

l Among the rest (boxed below), about half

described communicating with the IRS as

“difficult” to some extent while half did not 

consider it difficult – with little change in this 

measure since 2004.

15 18 15

19

34

15

20 17

21

27

Very Difficult SW Difficult Not Very

Difficult

Not At All

Difficult

DK/Never

Tried

2004 (n=1000) 2005 (n=1000)

Rating Communication With The IRS
21

&

What Determines Usage vs. Non-Usage Of e-file?

l Finally, in reviewing e-file research since 1997, 

we have all noted the differences between e-file 

Users and Non-Users. This year, to update our 

understanding of what drives usage and nonusage, we segmented Taxpayers into Current

Users, Lapsed Users, and Non-Triers and looked 

at how they differ on all demographic,

behavioral and attitudinal measures.

Current Lapsed NonUsers Users Trier

BASE: Total Respondents 599 106 272

% % %

DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES

Average Age Of Taxpayers 42 44 47

Gender

% Male 47 63 52

% Female 53 37 48

% With Children In HH 46 36 35

Average HH Income $63K $66K $67K

DIFFERENCES IN TAX FILING

CHARACTERISTICS/BEHAVIOR

Bal-Due vs. Refund

% Bal-Dues 17 35 32

% Refunds 79 60 56

% Zero Balance/Refused 5 5 12

Receipt Of Tax Credits

% Received EITC 30 22 22

% Received Child Tax Credit 36 25 26

% Received Education Tax Credit 12 9 13

% Use A Paid Preparer 59 56 56

% Use A Paid Preparer & Get Refund 45 32 29

% Use A Paid Preparer 

% Were Offered Option Of e-filing 83 54 36

Demographics & Behavioral Differences

l In Demographic & Behavioral measures, we

found the same traits as noted in the

Communications Tracking report – that...

n e-file Users are somewhat younger and lower

income, more have children, are heavily Refund, and 

more likely to receive EITC/CTC.

n Lapsed Users and Non-Triers share traits, but in the 

inverse to Users – they are older, more male, higher 

income, more Bal-Due, lower in EITC/CTC...

n And, in that same critical difference as found in

Communications Tracking, they are far less likely to 

be offered e-file by their Paid Tax Preparer (and not 

just because they are more Bal-Due – they are only 

13-16 points lower than Users in using a Paid

Preparer and getting a Refund, yet are 29-47 points 

lower in terms of being offered e-file by a Preparer). 
22

&

What Determines Usage vs. Non-Usage Of e-file?

l So we see that Demographics and Behavior

(particularly that of the Practitioner) affect

usage. So do Attitudes. We have 6 statements 

in the study (see chart) which Taxpayers rated 

in terms of importance and on which they also 

rated e-file. 

Attitudinal Differences – Using Gap Analysis 

Of Attribute Importance & e-file Ratings

Current Lapsed 

Users Users 

BASE: Total Respondents 599 106 

% % 

Being Assured That Your Return Is Accurate

% Rated This “Really Important” 95 92 

% Said This Describes e-file Completely 69 53 

--- DIFFERENCE, e-file vs. Importance (26) (39) 

Being Assured That Return Is Private/Secure

% Rated This “Really Important” 92 92 

% Said This Describes e-file Completely 55 34 

--- DIFFERENCE, e-file vs. Importance (37) (58) 

Easy To Use/Little Hassle

% Rated This “Really Important” 78 75 

% Said This Describes e-file Completely 65 30 

--- DIFFERENCE, e-file vs. Importance (13) (45) 

Being Inexpensive

% Rated This “Really Important” 71 70 

% Said This Describes e-file Completely 53 46 

--- DIFFERENCE, e-file vs. Importance (18) (24) 

A Faster Way To Get Your Return To The IRS

% Rated This “Really Important” 71 58 

% Said This Describes e-file Completely 82 67 

--- DIFFERENCE, e-file vs. Importance +11 +9 

A Faster Way To Get Your Refund/Money

% Rated This “Really Important” 61 44 

% Said This Describes e-file Completely 78 62 

---DIFFERENCE, e-file vs. Importance +17 +18 

% Agree Completely That e-file Is A Better

Way To Fill Your Federal Income Taxes 63 26 

l A Gap Analysis of the difference in how e-file is 

perceived vs. what’s “really important” to 

Taxpayers shows that Lapsed Users and NonTriers still do not know/accept that e-file is...

n Accurate, Private/Secure, and Easy To Use – and note 

that these are the attributes they need most in tax filing. 

Their gaps on other attributes, Cost and Speed, are not 

that different from Current Users.

n This tells us that Lapsed Users and Non-Triers have

“gotten the message” about the Speed benefits (and they 

are not even that interested in Speed, with more of them 

being Bal-Dues). But they have NOT gotten the message 

of e-file’s benefits in three areas they actually care a lot 

about – Accuracy, Privacy/Security, and Ease Of Use.

n Their lack of belief in e-file on their most important

issues is reflected in the extremely low proportions of 

these groups who agree that “e-file is a better way to file 

your Federal income taxes”.
&

Key Findings
24

&

80 78 77

83 80 83 83 80 82 82 82

75

80 82

% Very Satisfied

w/Practitioner efile

% Very Satisfied

w/OLF-OLCo.

% Very Satisfied

w/OLF-SW

% Very Satisfied

w/Free File

2001 (n=502) 2002 (n=502) 2003 (n=504) 2004 (n=500) 2005 (n=500)

NA NA NA NA NA NA

Key Findings From The 2005 Taxpayer Satisfaction Study

3 e-file products are maintaining high levels of satisfaction – but 

OLF w/An Online Company is trending downward and, in another 

measure, was also declining in terms of user commitment.

In line with this, Gap Analysis of attitudes toward e-file in 

general (outside of specific product context) showed that lack 

of belief in e-file is clearly playing a role in its non-adoption

among Non-Triers and even Lapsed Users. These segments 

have not gotten the message of e-file being Private/Secure, 

Easy, or Accurate – and these are the attributes of a filing 

method that they value most.

One other barrier to adoption is that Lapsed Users and NonUsers are still not being offered e-file by their Practitioners at 

anywhere near the level of Users – even though data show

that Practitioners are trending more toward offering it to NonUsers than they have in the past.

Non-User interest in 3 e-file products – Practitioner e-file, the 

OLF products as a group, and Free File separately – showed 

little year-to-year change, but long-term trend data indicates 

a possible hardening of Non-User resistance to products. 

Non-Users who were most resistant to adoption of each

product (“not very/not at all likely to use”) had generally 

negative impressions of the products in terms of their being 

better than other filing methods, being private and secure, 

and being easy to use. 

35

63

50 49

Practr. e-file OLF w/OL

Company

OLF w/Software Free File

% Say Product Can Be Improved (And How)

Lower 

the 

cost

Lower 

the 

cost, 

lower 

the 

cost,

lower 

the cost

Lower the 

cost and it 

would 

help if it 

was 

easier to 

use

Make it 

easier to 

use –

especially 

for more 

complex 

returns

All 4 products continue to have a high number of Use

suggesting improvements – especially OLF w/An Onlin

Company, where cost is the issue. 
&

Appendix

Other Survey Data

With Questionnaire Appended Electronically
26

&

Taxpayer Filing Characteristics, Demographics & Other Responses

Total Total Total Total

Tax- Random Lapsed Nonpayers Users Users Triers

BASE: Total Respondents 1000 599 106 272

% % % %

Federal Tax Preparation

% Self-Prepared 38 41 44 44

% Used Paid Practitioner 62 59 56 56

% Say Prepr Offered Option Of e-filing 66 83 54 36

Bal-Due vs. Refund

% Bal-Dues 24 17 35 32

% Refunds 69 79 60 56

% Zero Balance/Refused 7 5 5 12

Among Bal-Dues, Payment Method

% Automatic Bank Withdrawal 7 20 0 2

% Used Credit Card 4 8 3 2

% Wrote A Check 80 65 86 85

All Other Responses 6 5 5 7

Receipt Of Tax Credits

% Received EITC 27 30 22 22

% Received Child Tax Credit 32 36 25 26

% Received Education Tax Credit 12 12 9 13

Return Type

% Self-Simple 18 19 20 18

% Self-Complex 21 23 25 27

% Paid-Simple 23 24 21 17

% Paid-Complex 38 35 35 39

What They Do With Refunds NEW BASE: 704 474 64 153

Pay off bills 29 32 30 19

Save the refund/put in savings 19 19 16 19

Put refund in the bank/deposit refund 11 9 11 16

House renovations/home improvements 6 8 5 5

Vacation 6 7 2 9

Filing Characteristics

Total Total Total Tot

Tax- Random Lapsed Non

payers Users Users Trie

BASE: Total Respondents 1000 599 106 27

% % % %

Average Age Of Taxpayers 44 42 44 47

Gender

% Male 50 47 63 52

% Female 50 53 37 48

Average HH Size 3 3 3 3

% With Children In HH 40 46 36 35

% Married 63 61 66 65

% Living w/Someone, Unmarried 22 24 18 21

% With At Least Some College 67 68 70 66

Average HH Income $64K $63K $66K $67

% Mainly Spanish-Speaking 8 9 8 7

% With PC & Modem In HH 75 78 74 76

Among Those With PC & Modem

% With Home Access To Internet 94 96 95 92

Demographics & Other Characteristics