Pay nothing until a live IRS agent is on the phone with you.
Can't reach IRS? Claimyr calls for you, so you don't have to wait on hold.
$0 upfront. We only hold your card.
No live agent, no charge.
$9.99 is charged only once a live IRS agent is on the phone with you.
Using Claimyr will:
- Connect you to a human agent at the IRS
- Skip the long phone menu
- Call the correct department
- Redial until on hold
- Forward a call to your phone with reduced hold time
- Give you free callbacks if the IRS drops your call
Ask the community...
- DO post questions about your issues.
- DO answer questions and support each other.
- DO post tips & tricks to help folks.
- DO NOT post call problems here - there is a support tab at the top for that :)
Join the conversation
Join the conversation
Has anyone actually been audited by the IRS specifically for wash sales involving ETFs and options? I've been doing similar trades for years and never had an issue, but I'm not sure if that's because the IRS approved of my strategy or just never noticed...
I have a friend who got flagged during an audit for something similar. The IRS scrutinized some losses he claimed after trading between regular and leveraged ETFs of the same index. They disallowed some of his losses as wash sales. Not exactly the same as your inverse ETF/options scenario, but shows they do look at these complex ETF situations.
I've been dealing with similar inverse ETF wash sale questions and wanted to share what I learned from my tax attorney. The key factor the IRS looks at is whether the securities provide "substantially identical" economic exposure, not just whether they're technically different instruments. For your TSLS/Tesla puts situation, a few things work in your favor: inverse ETFs use derivatives and daily rebalancing which creates tracking differences from simple short exposure, put options have specific strike prices and expiration dates that create different risk profiles, and the leverage factor in TSLS (if any) versus unleveraged put options creates additional differentiation. However, be careful about the timing and magnitude. If you're buying at-the-money puts immediately after selling TSLS, you're in riskier territory than if you buy far OTM puts or wait even just a week or two. The IRS has been getting more sophisticated about these strategies, especially with the increase in ETF complexity. My attorney's advice was to document your investment thesis clearly - if you can show the puts serve a different purpose (like hedging a larger portfolio position rather than just replacing the inverse ETF exposure), that strengthens your position if questioned.
Join the conversation
Something nobody's mentioned yet is that resident vs. non-resident status affects how your investment income is taxed too. As a non-resident, you're only taxed on US-source income, but as a resident, you're taxed on your worldwide income. If you have investments or bank accounts back in your home country, the filing status makes a huge difference. Non-residents might avoid tax on foreign interest, dividends, etc., while residents have to report everything (though foreign tax credits can help avoid double taxation). I learned this the hard way after filing as a resident my first year when I should've been non-resident. Had to amend my return when I realized I unnecessarily reported (and paid tax on) my foreign investment income.
This is such an important point! I also want to add that if you do qualify as a resident alien, you might need to file FBAR (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts) if your foreign accounts exceed $10,000 at any point during the year. Non-resident aliens generally don't have this filing requirement.
I went through this exact same confusion last year! After months of research and consulting multiple sources, here's what I learned that might help: The key issue is that your F1 time from August 2022 to May 2024 falls under the "exempt individual" category for the substantial presence test. Students are exempt for their first 5 calendar years, so those days don't count toward your 183-day requirement. This means you're only counting your H1B days from June 2024 onward, which is likely not enough to reach 183 days for 2024. So you'd typically file as a non-resident alien using Form 1040NR. However, definitely look into the First-Year Choice election that Mateo mentioned above. Since you'll be in the US all of 2025 on H1B, you'll likely meet the substantial presence test next year, which could make you eligible to elect resident status for part of 2024. This could be beneficial depending on your income sources and deductions. One more thing - make sure you check if your home country has a tax treaty with the US. Some treaties have special provisions for students transitioning to work visas that could affect your filing requirements. The safest approach is to run the numbers both ways (resident vs non-resident) and see which gives you better tax treatment, assuming you're eligible for the First-Year Choice election.
Great question about the US-Canada tax treaty! As a Canadian transitioning from F1 to H1B, you're in a relatively favorable position. The treaty has specific provisions that can help, particularly Article XV (Independent Personal Services) and the tie-breaker rules if you're considered a resident of both countries. For your situation, the treaty generally won't change whether you qualify as a resident vs non-resident alien for US tax purposes - that's still determined by the substantial presence test and visa exemptions. However, it can provide benefits like: 1. Protection from double taxation on employment income 2. Potential exemptions for certain types of income 3. Reduced withholding rates on investment income if you file as non-resident For "running the numbers both ways," I'd recommend using tax software that can handle both resident and non-resident scenarios. TurboTax and FreeTaxUSA both have versions that can calculate your tax liability under different filing statuses. You can input your income information and see the difference in tax owed. Also consider that as a resident, you'd get access to credits like the Child Tax Credit (if applicable) and potentially better treatment of deductions, but you'd also have to report worldwide income. As a non-resident, you're only taxed on US-source income but lose access to many credits and deductions. Given that you'll likely meet the substantial presence test in 2025, the First-Year Choice election could be worth exploring if the resident calculation shows significant savings.
Great question about the US-Canada tax treaty! As a Canadian, you have some advantages during the F1 to H1B transition. Article XX of the US-Canada tax treaty has specific provisions for students that can extend certain benefits even after you start working. For treaty benefits, the key is usually whether you qualify as a "student" under the treaty definition during the transition period. Some provisions allow you to maintain student treaty benefits for a reasonable period while transitioning to work status, but this depends on your specific circumstances and timing. Regarding running the numbers both ways - I used a combination of tax software trials and spreadsheet calculations. Most major tax software (TurboTax, FreeTaxUSA, etc.) will let you start returns under both filing statuses to compare. You can input all your income and see the tax liability before actually filing. The taxr.ai tool that Anastasia mentioned earlier also does this comparison automatically. Key factors to compare: your effective tax rate on US income, whether you can claim standard deduction vs itemizing, eligibility for credits like the Child Tax Credit (if applicable), and most importantly - whether you have foreign income that would be taxable as a resident but not as a non-resident. Since you're from Canada, also check if you paid any Canadian taxes on income during 2024 - you might be able to claim foreign tax credits as a resident that you couldn't as a non-resident.
Join the conversation
This has been such an incredibly thorough and helpful discussion! As a new community member who's currently working toward my EA credentials, I'm amazed at how much clarity this thread has provided on what seemed like a complex regulatory issue. What really strikes me is how everyone approached this question with such diligence - from using AI tools like taxr.ai to analyze Circular 230, to services like Claimyr to actually reach IRS representatives, to direct calls with the Office of Professional Responsibility. The fact that all these different research methods led to the same consistent answer really builds confidence in the guidance. The consensus is crystal clear: EAs absolutely CAN and SHOULD advertise their credentials! The key is using precise language that accurately reflects the Treasury Department authorization rather than incorrectly claiming "IRS licensing." All the compliant phrasing examples shared here - especially "Enrolled Agent authorized by the U.S. Department of Treasury to practice before the IRS" - will be invaluable for anyone in our field. What I find most encouraging is seeing how proud EAs are of their hard-earned credentials and how willing everyone is to share knowledge to help the entire community succeed. The EA credential exists specifically to help taxpayers identify qualified representation - and they can't benefit from our expertise if we can't properly communicate our qualifications! Thanks to everyone who contributed their research, experience, and insights. This discussion has created an amazing resource that will help countless EAs navigate these advertising regulations with confidence.
Miguel, thank you for such a thoughtful summary of this entire discussion! As someone who's also new to this community, I'm incredibly impressed by the depth of research and willingness to help that everyone has demonstrated here. What really stands out to me is how this thread perfectly illustrates the collaborative nature of the EA community. We started with @NebulaKnight's workplace debate and ended up with a comprehensive resource that's clearly helping EAs at all stages of their careers understand these advertising regulations. The multi-faceted approach to verification - from AI regulatory analysis to direct IRS contact to real-world practitioner experience - gives this guidance incredible credibility. It's reassuring to see that regardless of the research method used, everyone consistently arrived at the same conclusion: EAs can proudly advertise their credentials with proper language. I'm particularly grateful for all the specific compliant phrasing examples that have been shared throughout this discussion. Having clear, tested language like "Enrolled Agent authorized by the U.S. Department of Treasury to practice before the IRS" takes so much uncertainty out of marketing compliance for those of us just entering the field. This thread has been an amazing example of how professional communities can come together to clarify complex regulations and help each other succeed. Thanks to everyone who contributed - this will definitely be a resource I refer back to as I continue my EA journey!
Wow, this has been an absolutely fascinating discussion to read through! As someone who recently joined this community and is working on obtaining my EA credentials, I can't thank everyone enough for the incredible depth of research and knowledge sharing that's happened here. What really impresses me is how this thread demonstrates multiple pathways to getting authoritative answers on regulatory questions. From AI tools like taxr.ai for analyzing Circular 230, to services like Claimyr for reaching IRS representatives, to direct calls with the Office of Professional Responsibility - the consistency across all these different research methods really validates the guidance. The consensus couldn't be clearer: EAs absolutely CAN and SHOULD advertise their credentials! We've earned this federal authorization through rigorous testing and continuing education, and taxpayers deserve to know about our qualifications. The key insight everyone has shared is that precision in language is crucial - we need to accurately represent that our authorization comes from the Treasury Department, not claim direct "IRS licensing." I'm bookmarking all the compliant language examples that have been shared: "Enrolled Agent authorized by the U.S. Department of Treasury to practice before the IRS" seems to be the gold standard phrasing. As someone preparing to enter practice, having this tested, compliant language removes so much uncertainty from future marketing efforts. @NebulaKnight - it looks like your colleague was right about being able to use EA credentials in advertising, though all the nuanced guidance about proper phrasing that emerged from this discussion will definitely benefit both of you in creating compliant marketing materials. Thanks for starting such a valuable conversation that's clearly helped numerous EAs understand these regulations better!
Ravi, this has been such an incredible learning experience for all of us! As another newcomer to this community, I'm blown away by how generous everyone has been with sharing their knowledge and research on this topic. What really resonates with me is how this discussion evolved from a simple workplace disagreement into a comprehensive resource that's clearly helping EAs at all career stages understand advertising regulations. The multiple verification approaches - AI analysis, direct IRS contact, and practitioner experience - all leading to the same conclusion really demonstrates the reliability of the guidance. I'm particularly grateful as someone just starting out to have access to all these tested, compliant language examples. Knowing that phrases like "Enrolled Agent authorized by the U.S. Department of Treasury to practice before the IRS" have been successfully used by practicing EAs gives me confidence in my future marketing efforts. It's also encouraging to see how proud the EA community is of our credentials and how committed everyone is to helping each other succeed while maintaining compliance. The underlying message is clear: we've earned these federal qualifications through hard work, and taxpayers need to know about our expertise to make informed decisions about representation. Thanks to @NebulaKnight for sparking this discussion and to everyone who contributed their research and experience. This thread will definitely be a resource I return to as I build my practice!
Join the conversation
Just FYI, if your toddler gets a 1099-NEC for this work, and the amount is $1100, you'll need to file a Schedule C and a Schedule SE for her. The self-employment tax would be about $155 (15.3% of 92.35% of $1100). But if she gets a W-2 instead, then the employer already withheld their portion and your daughter would only owe about $77 for her part.
Wow, this is such a unique situation! As someone new to this community, I'm amazed at how complex tax law can get even for a 3-year-old. From reading all these responses, it sounds like the key question is whether your daughter will receive a 1099-NEC or W-2 from your brother's company. If it's a 1099, she'd be considered self-employed and would need to pay the full 15.3% self-employment tax (around $155 as Genevieve calculated). If it's a W-2, the tax burden would be lower since the employer pays half. I'd definitely recommend getting this clarified with your brother before tax season hits. Also, make sure your daughter has her own SSN if she doesn't already - you'll need it for filing. The IRS really doesn't care about age when it comes to earned income taxes! One more thought - you might want to keep detailed records of any expenses related to the modeling work (transportation, special clothing, etc.) since those could potentially be deducted if she's filing as self-employed.
Aurora St.Pierre
Kinda silly question but does the price of the tote matter? Like if I spent $800 on a designer work bag, can I still deduct the whole thing or will the IRS be like "you could've bought a cheaper bag"?
0 coins
Lauren Johnson
•The IRS doesn't have specific price limits for business expenses, but they do look for "ordinary and necessary" expenses. An $800 bag wouldn't automatically be disallowed, but it might raise more questions than a $350 one. If you're in a profession where appearance matters (like high-end real estate, luxury sales, etc.) and meeting with premium clients, you could make a stronger case for an expensive designer bag being "ordinary and necessary" for your specific business. The key is whether the expense is reasonable for your particular industry and business needs, not just an arbitrary price point.
0 coins
Amara Okafor
Great question! I'm also relatively new to 1099 work and had similar concerns about what I could deduct. One thing that helped me was keeping a simple business expense log where I write down the date, amount, and business purpose for each purchase. For your tote bag situation, I'd suggest writing something like "Professional tote bag - exclusively used for transporting laptop, client documents, and business materials to meetings and co-working space." This creates a clear paper trail showing business intent. Also, don't worry about it being from Mercari - the IRS cares about the business purpose, not the retailer. Just make sure you have that receipt/purchase confirmation saved somewhere safe. Since you're under the $2,500 threshold, you can deduct it all in one year instead of depreciating it, which makes your taxes simpler too.
0 coins