[fock]

Well, to understand tax law, you need to understand language quite well (see another post these days on the frontpage...) - which usually comes with some skills in applying it. It smells a bit fishy, if you claim a person can do the first, but not the latter.

[bequanna]

Wait, you’re claiming that someone needs to be able to diagram a sentence or spell perfectly to understand tax law?

That’s ridiculous.

[ribosometronome]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32889072

The number two post on HN, when you posted this, was how poor writing/reading skills are the biggest barrier to understanding legal language.

[fock]

I don't know, but I guess that the intricacies of tax law are written down. And to study that (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/112b here?) you need to be able to be quite proficient at reading. And usually proficiency at efficient reading of laws translates to an ok command over speaking/writing as well (which apparently is not the case here)... if you read weird words a 100 times, I expect a moderately intelligent person to remember how to spell them...

[formerkrogemp]

I work in tax. Yes, you need to be able to read and write well to understand the changing tax law in the US. The tax code is also used as social policy in the US, and it's important to know for liability reasons that even the person you're paying to do it for you is doing some parts correctly. Did your payroll employee not withhold key taxes? That's a pretty large headache and fine you have coming.