


Ask the community...
One thing nobody's mentioned yet is the Qualified Business Income deduction (Section 199A). If you report your tutoring as self-employment, you might qualify for this deduction which lets you deduct up to 20% of your net business income. There are income limitations, but if tutoring is just your side gig, you're probably well under those thresholds. Definitely something to look into as it could reduce your taxable income significantly!
I had no idea about this! Am I eligible even if I'm only making around $3,800 from tutoring? How complicated is it to claim this deduction?
Yes, you're definitely eligible with $3,800 in tutoring income! The QBI deduction is available regardless of the size of your business, as long as you have qualified business income. It's not particularly complicated for your situation. The basic calculation is simple - up to 20% of your net business income can be deducted. So if your $3,800 in tutoring income has say $800 in related expenses, your net business income would be $3,000, and your potential QBI deduction would be $600 (20% of $3,000). The deduction goes directly on your 1040 form - you don't even need to itemize to claim it.
Quick tip I learned from my own tutoring business - start keeping a mileage log NOW if you're driving to students' homes. The IRS is strict about mileage documentation if you ever get audited. I use a simple app that tracks my trips. Also, don't forget about quarterly estimated tax payments! When you're self-employed, you should be making these throughout the year instead of paying everything at tax time. First time I did tutoring, I got hit with a penalty for not doing this.
Do you really need to do quarterly payments for such a small amount though? I make like $5k a year tutoring and just pay at tax time.
You might be able to get away with it for now, but technically you're supposed to make quarterly payments if you expect to owe $1,000 or more in taxes when you file. With $5k in tutoring income, you're probably getting close to that threshold depending on your other income and deductions. The IRS can charge underpayment penalties if you don't pay enough throughout the year, even if you pay everything by the April deadline. It's usually a small penalty for amounts that size, but still worth considering!
Anyone know if there's a difference in penalties between a husband/wife LLC that should've filed a 1065 versus a single-member LLC that filed incorrectly? My situation is similar but I'm the only owner.
Actually, if you have a single-member LLC, you generally DON'T need to file Form 1065 - Schedule C is usually correct for a single-member LLC (unless you elected to be taxed as a corporation). Single-member LLCs are typically treated as "disregarded entities" for federal tax purposes, meaning they're reported on Schedule C just like a sole proprietorship. It's only multi-member LLCs (like OP's situation with husband and wife) that are required to file as partnerships with Form 1065. So your situation might be completely different from the original poster's problem!
I went through almost the exact same situation last year with my husband/wife LLC! We had been filing Schedule C for two years before realizing we needed to file Form 1065 as a partnership. Here's what worked for us: We filed the late 1065 forms for both years we missed, then amended our personal returns (1040-X) to remove the Schedule C income and add the K-1 information instead. The key was including a detailed letter explaining that we genuinely misunderstood the filing requirements for multi-member LLCs. We ended up qualifying for First-Time Penalty Abatement since we had a clean filing history before this mistake. The total penalties were around $600 instead of the $2,000+ we were initially worried about. My biggest piece of advice: don't wait! The longer you put this off, the more penalties can accumulate. The IRS is generally much more lenient when you proactively correct the error rather than waiting for them to find it during an audit. Also, make sure you understand the K-1 process - each partner gets their own K-1 showing their share of income, deductions, and credits. This gets reported on your individual returns instead of the Schedule C income you previously reported.
The OECD publishes data on tax-to-GDP ratios that might interest you. For the US, the total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is around 26-27%, which is actually quite low compared to other developed countries. Many European countries have ratios over 40%. But that's a macroeconomic view, not an individual one. For individuals, the Tax Policy Center estimated that the average American household pays about 34% in total taxes, though this varies enormously by income. The top 1% might pay closer to 40-45% all-in, while lower-income households might pay 15-20% when considering the regressive nature of sales and payroll taxes. The 50% figure you mentioned would be unusual except for very high earners in high-tax states like California or New York who also have significant consumption and property holdings.
Really appreciate the data points! I didn't realize the US was actually on the lower end compared to other developed countries. The 34% average makes sense, though I imagine there's huge variation. When you factor in things like healthcare premiums (which are essentially taxes in other countries with universal healthcare), does that change how the US ranks? It seems like we might pay less in direct taxes but more in total when you include things other countries cover through their tax systems.
That's an excellent point about healthcare premiums. When you factor those in, the comparison shifts dramatically. Americans typically spend an additional 8-12% of their income on health insurance premiums, which citizens in countries with universal healthcare receive through their tax systems. If you add healthcare costs to the tax burden, the effective "mandatory payment" rate for middle-class Americans often exceeds what comparable households pay in countries like Canada, the UK, or Germany. The OECD has done some analyses on this "tax-plus-essential-services" comparison, and it shows the US advantage in lower taxation is largely offset by higher private healthcare costs, especially for median-income households.
Don't forget inflation! It's not technically a "tax," but when the government prints money, it devalues our savings and income. Some economists call it a hidden tax because it transfers purchasing power from citizens to the government. If you add 7-8% inflation to your total tax calculation, the real government burden on the average person is probably closer to that 50% number you suggested. Our purchasing power has been absolutely crushed the last few years.
Inflation isn't a tax, it's a monetary phenomenon. While it can reduce purchasing power, it affects different people differently. For example, fixed-rate mortgage holders actually benefit from inflation since they're paying back loans with less valuable dollars. Also, governments don't just "print money" at will - monetary policy is way more complex than that. Calling inflation a "tax" is misleading and overly simplistic.
@Luca Marino While you re'technically correct that inflation isn t'a direct tax, I think @Zara Malik has a valid point about the practical impact. When the government increases spending and the Federal Reserve expands the money supply to accommodate it, the resulting inflation does effectively transfer purchasing power from savers to the government. Milton Friedman famously said inflation is "taxation without legislation. It might" not be as direct as income tax, but for someone trying to calculate their total economic burden from government policies, inflation s impact'on real wages and savings is definitely worth considering alongside traditional taxes. The mortgage benefit you mentioned is real, but it primarily helps asset owners while hurting renters and people on fixed incomes - which tends to be regressive, just like sales taxes.
Has anyone mentioned allocation rules? In community property states, you typically need to report half of the TOTAL community income on your return, regardless of who earned it. So without his W2, you're really in a bind.
Yes, that's normally true, but the IRS has special procedures for situations exactly like this! There's actually Revenue Ruling 2002-22 that specifically addresses situations where spouses in community property states can't get information from each other. You can find more details in Publication 555.
I went through something very similar during my separation in California. The key thing to understand is that you're not required to have perfect information to file Form 8958 - you just need to make a good faith effort to comply with the law. Here's what worked for me: I filed using only the information I had access to (my own income) and included a detailed statement explaining that my spouse refused to provide their W2 despite multiple requests. I documented every attempt I made to get the information - saved screenshots of texts, emails, etc. For the community property allocation, I used the prior year's tax return to estimate what my spouse's income might have been, then clearly noted this was an estimate based on limited information. The IRS accepted my return without any issues. The most important thing is to be transparent about your situation and show that you've made reasonable efforts to get the missing information. Don't let your spouse's lack of cooperation prevent you from filing on time. The IRS deals with these situations more often than you might think, especially with separated couples.
Liam Sullivan
My accountant used to do the same thing until I educated him about the risks. Now we use a simple workaround - I put all my documents in a password-protected zip file and send the password via text message. Not perfect security but way better than plain email. Most accountants aren't being malicious, they're just stuck in outdated practices and don't realize the risks.
0 coins
Amara Okafor
ā¢This is what I do too. 7zip lets you create encrypted archives with good password protection. I send the file through email and the password through text. Simple solution that even my technologically challenged accountant could handle.
0 coins
LilMama23
I'm a tax preparer myself and I have to say - your concerns are 100% valid. Any professional handling sensitive tax documents in 2025 who doesn't offer secure transmission methods is being negligent, plain and simple. The IRS has specific guidance about this in Publication 4557 (Safeguarding Taxpayer Data) that clearly states tax professionals should use secure methods for transmitting client data. Regular email is explicitly discouraged because it's transmitted in plain text and can be intercepted at multiple points. Here's what I'd recommend as minimum acceptable alternatives: 1) Password-protected encrypted files with passwords sent separately, 2) Secure client portals (most tax software includes these now), 3) Encrypted email services, or 4) Secure file-sharing platforms like those mentioned by other users. If they continue to refuse, honestly, I'd find another accountant. A professional who dismisses legitimate security concerns and won't adapt their practices to protect your sensitive information is showing poor judgment that could extend to other areas of their work. Your SSN, financial account numbers, and other personal data deserve better protection than "this is how we've always done it.
0 coins