Has anyone considered the Married Filing Separately option? My partner and I did that last year and it worked better than trying to claim HOH or dependent status.

I'm dealing with a similar situation and found all this advice really helpful! Just wanted to add that you might want to consider other filing strategies too. Since you can't claim HOH status, make sure you're at least maximizing your standard deduction as a single filer. Also, if either of you has student loan interest, medical expenses, or other potential itemized deductions, it might be worth running the numbers both ways (standard vs itemized) to see what works best. The fact that you're paying most expenses shows you're being financially responsible, but unfortunately the tax code doesn't always reward that when it comes to unmarried couples. Best of luck with your filing!

I've been through this process multiple times as a non-resident filer. Here's what's actually happening: 1. The IRS assigns your DDD (02/20/2025) 2. The IRS releases funds to SBTPG 1-3 days before DDD 3. SBTPG deducts any filing fees you authorized 4. SBTPG initiates ACH transfer to your bank 5. Your bank processes the incoming ACH The variation you're seeing year-to-year comes from steps 3-4. SBTPG processes in batches, not individually. Some batches go out morning, some evening. There's no guarantee of early processing despite what some experience. Their terms only promise delivery by the DDD, not before.

As someone who's dealt with SBTPG processing delays across multiple tax seasons, I can confirm that their batch processing system has become increasingly unpredictable. The 31 CFR § 210.5 regulation you mentioned primarily governs federal benefit payments, but SBTPG operates under different ACH processing rules as a third-party refund processor. What I've observed is that ITIN filers like yourself often experience longer processing windows compared to SSN filers - this could be due to additional verification protocols they run for international returns. Last year's early deposit (2 days before DDD) was likely an anomaly rather than the standard. My advice: don't panic until after your actual DDD passes. SBTPG's internal processing has shifted from their previous 24-48 hour window to what appears to be a 48-72 hour window in 2025. If you don't see movement by 02/21, then it's worth contacting both SBTPG and checking your transcript for any holds or issues.

Just went through this same confusion last year! To add to what Cameron said - you can actually see on your transcript which one you're getting. Look for code 768 (CTC) vs code 766 (ACTC). If you see the 766 code, that's the refundable portion and yep, you're stuck waiting till mid-Feb because of PATH. Super frustrating but at least now you know why! 📊

This thread is super helpful! I've been pulling my hair out trying to understand why my refund is taking forever. Filed on Jan 20th with 3 kids and definitely have the child tax credit on my return. Based on what everyone's saying here, sounds like I'm probably getting the ACTC (refundable portion) which means I'm stuck in PATH Act purgatory until mid-Feb 😩 At least now I know it's not just me and there's actually a reason for the delay!

Based on what you've described, it sounds like H&R Block is correctly applying Publication 525 to your situation. Since you mentioned having "unusual tax situations" in 2024 and your SALT deduction was close to the $10k limit in 2023, there's likely a good reason their system is using the more detailed Publication 525 calculation rather than the simplified worksheet. The fact that you're getting different results between the two methods is actually a red flag that you should use Publication 525. The worksheet assumes you received the full tax benefit from your state tax deduction, but if you were close to the SALT cap or your itemized deductions barely exceeded the standard deduction, that assumption might not be correct. I'd recommend double-checking your 2023 return to see exactly how much your itemized deductions exceeded the standard deduction that year. If the difference is smaller than your state refund amount, then Publication 525 is definitely the way to go. Better to trust the more comprehensive calculation than risk overpaying taxes on a refund that might not be fully taxable.

Great discussion everyone! As someone who's dealt with this exact confusion before, I want to add that another situation where Publication 525 becomes relevant is if you had AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) in 2023. If you were subject to AMT in the prior year, your state tax deduction might have been limited or completely disallowed for AMT purposes, which means you didn't get the full tax benefit from those state taxes. In that case, some or all of your state refund would be non-taxable under Publication 525 rules. This is another reason why tax software like H&R Block might automatically use Publication 525 - their systems can detect these less obvious situations where the simple worksheet doesn't tell the whole story. If you had any AMT liability in 2023, that could explain why their calculation differs from the basic worksheet approach.

I just went through this exact situation last year. Make sure the PIUs are actually structured as true profits interests and not capital interests! My company screwed up the documentation, and the IRS later determined mine were technically capital interests, which meant I should have recognized income at grant. Ended up with penalties and interest because I didn't report any income initially (thinking they were profits interests with $0 value).

For a properly structured profits interest, the key language to look for is that your units only entitle you to share in "future appreciation" or "profits and losses from the date of grant forward" - not the current liquidation value of the company. The agreement should explicitly state that if the company were liquidated immediately after your grant, you would receive nothing. Also watch out for these red flags that could make it a capital interest instead: - Any guaranteed minimum distribution amount - Rights to share in existing company value/assets - Liquidation preferences that put you ahead of other members - Language giving you rights to company book value or net worth The agreement should clearly state your units are "profits interests" under IRC Section 83 and that they have zero value at grant date assuming no appreciation from that point forward. If there's any ambiguity about whether you'd receive value in an immediate liquidation scenario, the IRS might treat it as a capital interest requiring immediate income recognition. I'd recommend having a tax attorney review the specific language before you sign, especially given what happened to @Jamal Anderson. The documentation details really matter here.