Internal Revenue Code Meets IRS Code and IRS Tax Code: The Outcome Isn't Reassuring

In my last post, Tax Precision Not Involving Numbers: A Closed Captioning Fail and the Oxymoronic "IRS Code", I described my dislike of the imprecision reflected in the use of terms such as "IRS Code" and "IRS tax code":

The speaker refers to "IRS Code 274(e)(4)." As I pointed out in Is Tax Ignorance Contagious?, "First, there is no such thing as an IRS code. There is an Internal Revenue Service. There is an Internal Revenue Code. The IRS does not create nor does it own the Internal Revenue Code." Apparently, not enough people read MauledAgain, because the error continues to be repeated. Fifteen years after pointing out the non-existence of the "IRS Code," I had to address the use of "IRS tax code." I did so in Tax Season Brings Out a Question (Which I Try to Answer), But It Also Brings Misinformaiton, in which I explained that "another problem is the use of the phrase “IRS tax code.” Why? Because there is no such thing. There is an “Internal Revenue Code” for which the acronym is IRC. The acronym for the Internal Revenue Service is IRS. Yes, there is only a one-letter difference between the two acronyms but precision matters. For those interested in my previous reactions to the use of the oxymoronic phrase, “IRS Code,” see Is Tax Ignorance Contagious? * * *."

About a week later, reader Morris shared some research he did after he posed the question, "How many references to the phrase IRS Code on the Internet?" This is what he discovered:

An exact real time total of references for the phrase "IRS Code" across the internet cannot be fixed, as search engine indexes fluctuate continuously. However, major search engine indexes currently return between 15 million and 30 million indexed web pages containing the exact phrase.

"IRS Code" Estimated index pages 15 million to 30 million common context general discussion, tax blogs, news, and transcript code lookups

"Internal Revenue Code" "IRC" 35 million to 50 million formal legal documents, statutory references, academic papers , and U.S. Code database entries

"IRS Tax Code" 10 million to 20 million layperson explanations, personal finance articles, and tax prep software guides

My reaction should not surprise those who read MauledAgain. I replied to reader Morris"

"Sad, isn't it? It shows how quickly information AND misinformation can spread across the planet. It's our childhood game of telephone on steroids.

That the correct terminology gets about the same (35 to 50 million) as the two incorrect terminologies (25 to 50 million) is sad. It's possible that there is double counting, as it would not be surprising to find websites that use BOTH incorrect terminologies.

And it's understandable (though a sign of educational deficiencies) that the incorrect terminology appears in layperson explanations but to find them on tax blogs, and tax prep software guides is deeply disappointing.

And, of course, I thanked him for his contribution which indeed I think will be of interest to readers who share my affinity for precision.

Precision matters. If you've seen "Unstoppable" – yes, a train reference – you may remember that precision was spotlighted twice, first, when early in the film the the character Ned Oldham, a railroad welder, explained that welding always requires precision, and near the end, after Ned drives his pickup alongside the train matching its speed so that Will Colson can jump into the truck bed and then jump into the locomotive cab, he is asked how he was able to accomplish what he did, Ned simply replied, "Precision." If you haven't seen that movie, it's worth 98 minutes. Throughout the film, viewers see why precision matters.

It's Internal Revenue Code. Or, if brevity is necessary, IRC. That's all. That's precisely what it is.