I'm dealing with a very similar situation at my healthcare facility and this thread has been incredibly eye-opening! My employer is also trying to retroactively reclassify me from W-2 to 1099 after I specifically negotiated employee status when I accepted my PRN position. What really bothers me is how they're framing this as a "compliance" issue when the real compliance issue is them trying to change worker classification after the fact. The IRS is very clear that classification is determined by the actual working relationship - control over when/where/how you work, use of employer equipment, integration into business operations, etc. From everything I've read in this thread, a fair 1099 equivalent for $70/hour W-2 would be around $95-100/hour minimum. This accounts for the additional self-employment taxes, loss of unemployment and workers' comp protection, need for professional liability insurance, and all the administrative burden that comes with contractor status. My advice would be to document everything, stand firm on your original agreement, and don't let them gaslight you into thinking this "mistake" is somehow your responsibility to fix. You negotiated in good faith and they need to honor their commitments. If they absolutely insist on changing to 1099 for future work, make sure they compensate you appropriately for the significantly different employment arrangement they're proposing. The fact that so many healthcare employers are pulling these tactics suggests there might be some industry-wide effort to shift costs to workers. Don't let them get away with it!

This is exactly why having clear documentation is so crucial when negotiating employment terms! Your employer is essentially trying to rewrite history by calling your specifically negotiated W-2 status a "mistake." The bottom line is that worker classification under IRS rules is determined by the actual working relationship, not what becomes financially convenient for the employer later. If you're working their assigned schedules, in their facility, using their equipment, and following their protocols, you're clearly an employee regardless of the PRN designation. Based on the excellent calculations others have shared, if they somehow insist on 1099 status (which they legally cannot do retroactively), you'd need around $95-105/hour to maintain equivalent after-tax compensation. This accounts for the 15.3% self-employment tax, loss of unemployment/workers' comp protection, professional liability insurance costs, and the administrative burden of quarterly taxes and business record-keeping. My recommendation: Send a polite but firm email referencing your original negotiations and documentation. Make it clear you'll continue under the agreed W-2 terms. If they persist with this "correction," present them with the math showing what equivalent 1099 compensation would actually look like. Don't let them gaslight you into thinking their failure to understand their own classification policies is somehow your problem to solve. You negotiated in good faith and have every right to expect them to honor their commitments.

Called turbo tax support and they said itll be ready by next week. Take that with a grain of salt tho

I'm dealing with the exact same thing! Been checking TurboTax daily and that 01/30/2025 date for Missouri forms keeps staring me in the face. Super annoying since I already got my federal refund back in early January. At this point I'm wondering if it's worth just switching to a different tax software that actually has their Missouri forms ready. Has anyone successfully switched mid-season without losing all their entered data?

As someone who's dealt with EIN/SSN mix-ups before, I totally understand your anxiety! The good news is that this type of administrative error rarely causes issues with the IRS. Their computer systems are designed to handle exactly these situations. Since you correctly reported all your 1099-NEC income on Schedule C line 11, you've done the most important part. The IRS receives copies of those 1099s with your EIN, and their matching systems can easily connect that to your SSN on your personal return - both identifiers are linked to you in their database. I'd strongly recommend against filing an amended return at this point. Sometimes trying to "fix" minor administrative details like this can actually create more complications and delays. Your return should process normally, and your refund shouldn't be affected. If the IRS needed clarification on anything, they would typically send you a notice asking for specific information. The fact that your return was accepted for processing is actually a good sign. Try not to stress too much about this - it's a very common mistake and their systems handle it routinely!

Welcome to the community! I'm glad you found all the responses helpful - that's exactly what this community is for. Your anxiety about the EIN/SSN mix-up is completely understandable, especially when you're new to filing business income. Just to add one more reassuring data point: I've been a tax preparer for over 8 years, and I see this exact mistake regularly. The IRS computer systems have gotten very sophisticated at cross-referencing taxpayer information. When your 1099-NECs were filed with your EIN and you report that same income on your personal return with your SSN, their systems automatically link these together. The key takeaway everyone has mentioned is spot-on - you correctly reported your income, which is what the IRS cares about most. Administrative details like which identifier appears on which line rarely cause processing issues. One tip for future years: if you have an EIN for your business, you can use either your EIN or SSN on Schedule C - both are acceptable. Some people prefer using their EIN for privacy reasons when dealing with clients, but from a tax filing perspective, either works fine as long as you're consistent with your income reporting. You're handling this exactly right by waiting rather than filing an unnecessary amendment. Your refund should come through without any issues!

19 Has your wife considered that the finance partner might be refusing these expenses because they're actually not legitimate business expenses? Just playing devil's advocate here. I've been in partnerships where one person thinks everything is a business expense when it's really more personal or questionable.

This is a frustrating but unfortunately common situation with S Corps. The key point everyone has touched on is correct - the TCJA eliminated personal deductions for unreimbursed employee business expenses, and S Corp owners are treated as employees for this purpose. What I'd suggest is framing this as a business decision rather than a personal tax issue. Those legitimate expenses (conference fees, software, professional memberships) are reducing the company's overall profitability when they're not properly recorded. Even if cash flow prevents immediate reimbursement, the S Corp should at least book these as business expenses and liabilities owed to your wife. This way the business gets the deduction (reducing everyone's K-1 income), and your wife has a documented claim for future reimbursement when cash flow improves. The current approach is essentially forcing all partners to pay higher taxes on phantom income while legitimate business costs go unrecognized. Maybe approach the finance partner with a proposal: "Let's at least record these properly in the books as business expenses, even if we can't cut checks immediately." This protects everyone's tax situation while acknowledging the cash flow constraints.

This is really helpful information! I'm dealing with a similar situation but with a December 31st fiscal year end for my S-Corp. Just to make sure I understand the pattern correctly - since my fiscal year ends December 31, 2024, I would file a 2024 tax return by March 15, 2025, covering the period January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024. The confusing part for me is that this means my S-Corp return and my personal return would both be for the same tax year (2024), but my K-1 income from the S-Corp gets reported on my personal return. Is there any timing issue I should be aware of when both returns are due around the same time in 2025? Also, @Mateo Sanchez, your point about needing a valid business purpose for non-calendar fiscal years is concerning. How do you determine if your fiscal year qualifies as a "natural business year"? My business is seasonal and most of our revenue does come in the last few months of the calendar year, so I'm wondering if that helps justify the December 31st end date.

Great question! I was in the exact same boat when I first set up my S-Corp with a fiscal year end. The rule is straightforward once you understand it: you file based on the calendar year in which your fiscal year ENDS, not when it begins. So for your fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, you'll file a 2024 tax return (Form 1120-S) due March 15, 2025. This return covers your business activity from October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2024. One thing that helped me keep this straight: think of it as "which year am I closing the books in?" Since you're closing your books in 2024 (September 30, 2024), that's your 2024 tax year. Also, don't forget that even though your S-Corp files for 2024, you'll report your K-1 income on your personal 2024 return too (due April 15, 2025). The timing works out since your S-Corp return is due first and should generate your K-1 in time for your personal filing. If you need more time, you can always file Form 7004 for an automatic 6-month extension on the S-Corp return. Good luck with your second year - it gets easier once you get the rhythm down!