The author argues that the IRS should not be trusted with Direct File, a program that would allow the agency to prepare taxes for free. The author's main arguments are that the IRS is not competent enough to handle this responsibility, that Direct File would not be "free" as its advocates claim, and that it would give the IRS too much power. The author's arguments are largely based on speculation and fear-mongering, and they do not provide any concrete evidence to support their claims. However, the author does raise some valid concerns about the potential for abuse of power by the IRS.

1. appeal to fear • The author uses the fear of audits and the potential for unethical behavior by the IRS to argue against Direct File.

Its audits are notoriously ferocious and burdensome, and it has, at times, deployed its vast powers for unethical and politicized ends.

This tactic aims to elicit fear to persuade the reader, rather than relying on a balanced argument.

2. appeal to tradition • The text suggests that because Direct File goes against American legal and political tradition, it is inherently negative.

    "The proposed system's very conceit clangs against the American legal and political tradition"

This fallacy assumes that what is traditional or has been done in the past is necessarily better.

3. loaded language • The author uses loaded and emotionally charged language ("economic bully") to portray the IRS in a negative light, which is a form of loaded language fallacy.

The IRS is the ultimate economic bully.

There are other instances of loaded language in the text beyond this "bully" remark, such as describing the IRS's legal footing for the program as "dubious" and characterizing the potential for IRS abuse as "likely," which are designed to evoke a skeptical or negative response towards the IRS and its Direct File system.

4. red herring • This argument introduces the issue of data breaches to divert attention from the central argument about the efficacy and advisability of Direct File, leading the reader away from the main issue at hand.

The IRS has failed routinely to prevent data breaches, including a 2022 incident in which the agency briefly published the personal data of 120,000 taxpayers.

While data security is a significant issue, it is irrelevant to the argument about whether Direct File itself is a good policy. The shift in focus does not directly address the merits or drawbacks of allowing the IRS to prepare taxpayer filings, which is the core issue at hand. This diversion muddles the discussion by introducing a separate concern that, while important, does not contribute to evaluating the proposed tax preparation program's viability or effectiveness.