Tragedy of the Commons here means that a minority of highly motivated players (in this case the tax preparation companies like Intuit) work much harder to implement a policy that is only mildly annoying for the vast majority of people.

In this case millions of people have to spend between $0 - ~$200 a year so that a few hundred/thousand people can make boatloads of cash to file taxes.

No, that's not at all what "tragedy of the commons" means. What you describe is just run-of-the-mill capitalism, not a "tragedy of the commons."

To be a tragedy of the commons there must be

1) a shared resource (example: the ocean)

2) it must be in an individual's best interest to utilize the resource as much as possible (example: the more fish I catch the more money I make)

and

3) the actions of each individual working in their individual best interest leads to the degradation of the shared resource as a whole for everyone given enough individuals (example: extinction of fish species).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

>The tragedy of the commons is a situation in a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action. The theory originated in an essay written in 1833 by the British economist William Forster Lloyd, who used a hypothetical example of the effects of unregulated grazing on common land.

>In this modern economic context, commons is taken to mean any shared and unregulated resource such as atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, roads and highways, or even an office refrigerator.

I guess? In the Tragedy of the Commons, the people using the "Commons" ultimately make things worse for themselves. In this case, the people using the "Commons" don't get hurt.