Protip: Account transcript updates every Tuesday and Friday morning around 6am EST. Save yourself the stress and just check those days

Also make sure you're looking at the right section of the Account Transcript - the 846 code will be in the transactions section with a date next to it. If you see code 150 (tax return filed) but no 846 yet, it just means they're still processing. The refund date on the 846 code is usually the actual deposit date, so that's the golden number you're hunting for!

I filed Form 8379 in January 2024 and received my refund in exactly 9 weeks. What helped me was keeping detailed records of all correspondence and checking my transcript weekly rather than relying on Where's My Refund, which barely updates for injured spouse cases. One tip that might help - make sure you clearly separate your income, withholdings, and any estimated tax payments on the form. Any ambiguity seems to add processing time. Also, if you have direct deposit set up, that can shave off a few extra days compared to waiting for a paper check. The waiting is brutal, but in my experience, most people do get their refunds closer to the 8-10 week mark rather than the full 11 weeks.

I filed Form 8379 in February 2024 and got my refund in exactly 10 weeks and 3 days. What really helped me track progress was setting up an online IRS account to monitor my transcript - the codes tell you way more than Where's My Refund ever will. I noticed the TC 971 notice code appeared around week 7, which indicated they were actively reviewing my case. One thing I learned is that if you're in genuine financial hardship, you can contact the Taxpayer Advocate Service even after the 30-day window - they have some discretion for urgent situations. The key is documenting your hardship thoroughly. Also, double-check that your bank account info is correct for direct deposit, as any errors there can add weeks to the process even after approval. Hang in there - most people I know got theirs between weeks 8-10!

Great thread! Just to add one more resource - if you're still feeling uncertain about the filing requirements after using tax software, the IRS has a really helpful Interactive Tax Assistant tool on their website (irs.gov/help/ita). You can walk through a series of questions about your daughter's specific situation and it will give you a definitive answer about whether filing is required. I used it last year when my nephew had a similar situation with both W-2 income and investment sales. The tool is free, official, and takes into account all the different thresholds and rules that apply to dependents. It's particularly useful because it considers the interaction between earned income, unearned income, and gross proceeds from sales. Since you mentioned this is her first year investing, you might also want to keep good records of all her transactions beyond just what's on the 1099-B. If she continues investing, having detailed records of purchase dates, amounts, and any reinvested dividends will be invaluable for future tax years. Good luck with the filing!

This is such a valuable discussion! I'm dealing with a similar situation with my 16-year-old who started investing with birthday money. One thing I learned the hard way is that even though the gross proceeds threshold triggers the filing requirement, you also need to be careful about how the cost basis is reported on the 1099-B. Some brokerages don't track cost basis for stocks purchased before certain dates, or they might not have complete information if the stocks were transferred from another account. If the cost basis shows as "not reported to IRS" or is blank on the 1099-B, you'll need to provide that information on the tax return yourself. I'd recommend double-checking that the $2,800 cost basis on your daughter's 1099-B matches your records of what was actually paid for the stocks. If there are any discrepancies, you'll want to have documentation ready to support the correct cost basis when filing. The IRS will definitely notice if the reported gain doesn't match what they expect based on the 1099-B information they receive.

Has anyone here dealt with reporting suspended EBIE on partner tax returns when there's a partial disposition of a partnership interest? The regulations aren't super clear on how to allocate the suspended EBIE in that scenario.

This is a complex area that I've been wrestling with in my practice as well. One thing to keep in mind is that the proposed regulations under 163(j) specifically address the treatment of suspended EBIE when partnerships change their election status. Even though Partnership A is making the 163(j) election going forward, the suspended EBIE from 2018 and 2019 doesn't just disappear. The key is understanding that this suspended amount is tracked at the partner level, not the partnership level. Each partner maintains their own "bucket" of suspended EBIE from each partnership. Beyond the CARES Act relief allowing 50% deduction of 2019 EBIE, the remaining suspended amounts will indeed carry forward until one of the triggering events occurs - either the partnership generates excess taxable income/excess business interest income in future years, or the partner disposes of their interest. What's interesting about your situation is that even with the 163(j) election, Partnership A could still potentially generate excess amounts in future years if its income profile changes significantly. The election doesn't permanently eliminate this possibility, it just makes it less likely given the trade-off you're making with depreciation periods. I'd recommend keeping detailed records of each partner's suspended EBIE by year and partnership, as this will be crucial for proper reporting when disposition or other triggering events eventually occur.

This has been such a helpful thread! I was in a similar situation with my disregarded LLC and was getting conflicting advice from different sources. The key takeaway I'm getting is that the entity classification for tax purposes is what really matters here. Just to summarize what I've learned from everyone's responses: - If your LLC is truly disregarded (no tax elections), Section 280A becomes problematic because you're essentially renting to yourself - If you've elected S-corp or C-corp taxation, then you have a separate taxpayer entity that can legitimately rent your residence - Documentation is absolutely critical - fair market rates, legitimate business purposes, proper meeting records - The 14-day limit is per residence, not per entity One question I still have: if you're a single-member LLC that elected S-corp taxation, do you need to follow all the S-corp formalities (board meetings, corporate resolutions, etc.) to make the Augusta Rule work properly? Or is the tax election alone sufficient?

This discussion has been incredibly enlightening! I'm a tax professional who works with a lot of small business owners, and I see confusion about Section 280A constantly. Let me add a few practical points that might help clarify things further. First, regarding the Forbes article Mary mentioned - financial publications often oversimplify complex tax rules, which can be misleading. The reality is that Section 280A isn't automatically off-limits for LLCs, but the entity's tax classification is absolutely crucial. For those with single-member LLCs that haven't made any tax elections, you're correct that this creates a "renting to yourself" problem. However, there are legitimate business structures that can work. Beyond electing S-corp or C-corp taxation, some clients have success with partnership structures or bringing in additional members to create a true separate entity. One critical point I don't see mentioned yet: the IRS has been increasingly scrutinizing Augusta Rule claims in recent years. They're particularly focused on whether the rental rate is truly at fair market value and whether genuine business activities occurred. I've seen audits where the IRS challenged decorative "business meetings" that were clearly just family gatherings with a thin business purpose. My recommendation is always to be conservative with the rental rate, maintain meticulous documentation, and ensure any meetings have legitimate business outcomes that you can demonstrate. The tax savings aren't worth the audit risk if you can't substantiate everything properly.