


Ask the community...
Has anyone here ever just absorbed the 6% penalty each year rather than withdrawing the excess? I'm trying to decide if it's worth it in my case since my excess contribution was only $600 and the penalty is just $36/year.
I did this for two years when I had a small excess amount. The math worked out that paying the penalty was better than withdrawing in my situation because my investments had good returns. But remember, you're paying that penalty EVERY year until you either withdraw the excess or "absorb" it by under-contributing in a future year.
Great breakdown of your situation! You're absolutely correct about the penalty calculations - $60 for 2022 and $60 for 2023, and no penalty for 2024 if you withdraw before April 15, 2025. One important detail to add: when you contact your IRA provider in January 2025, make sure to specify that you want to withdraw the excess contribution for tax year 2022 (not 2024). This is crucial for proper reporting on their end. Regarding your question about using the withdrawn funds for your 2025 contribution - yes, you can absolutely do that! Once the money is properly withdrawn as an excess contribution correction, it's just regular cash that you can use however you want, including for a new IRA contribution (assuming you're eligible for 2025). And yes, you'll still need to file Form 5329 for 2024 even though you won't owe a penalty. This shows the IRS that you've corrected the excess contribution properly. The form will show the withdrawal and zero out the excess for that year. One last tip: keep detailed records of all this, including the specific dates and amounts. It'll make your tax filing much smoother and help if the IRS ever has questions later.
Has anyone considered just switching to directly holding Bitcoin instead of GBTC? I did that after dealing with this nightmare last year. Now I use a specialized crypto tax software that integrates with my wallet and exchanges. Much cleaner tax situation and no surprise micro-transactions for fees.
I moved from GBTC to direct Bitcoin holdings last year and it's actually WAY simpler for taxes. Most crypto tax software can generate complete reports for wallets and exchanges. Plus you avoid those ridiculous GBTC management fees that create all these micro-transactions in the first place.
I'm dealing with a very similar situation with GBTC in my Schwab account. Got about 45 micro-transactions listed as "UNDETERMINED TERM TRANSACTIONS FOR NONCOVERED TAX LOTS" and was completely overwhelmed trying to figure out how to report them. Based on what I'm reading here, it sounds like the single-transaction exception might be perfect for my situation since my total proceeds are only around $290. I had no idea this was even an option! One question though - when calculating the basis for these aggregated transactions, should I be using the original purchase price of the GBTC shares that were sold for fees, or is there a different way to calculate it? My broker shows "basis not reported to IRS" for all of these, so I need to figure out the correct basis myself. Thanks everyone for sharing your experiences - this thread has been incredibly helpful for understanding what seemed like an impossible tax situation!
For calculating the basis on those aggregated GBTC fee transactions, you'll need to use the original purchase price of the specific shares that were sold. Since GBTC typically uses FIFO (first-in, first-out) for these fee sales, you'd calculate based on your earliest purchases. Here's what worked for me: I created a simple spreadsheet tracking my GBTC purchases chronologically, then worked through which shares would have been sold first for the fee payments. For each micro-transaction, I used the cost basis of the corresponding shares from my original purchases. Since your total is under $1,000, you can definitely use the single-transaction exception. Just make sure to keep that detailed calculation spreadsheet in your records. The basis calculation can be tedious, but it's much easier than reporting 45 separate transactions! And yes, you'd still check box C on Form 8949 since the basis wasn't reported to the IRS.
Just to clarify - the driver's license/ID request is like a secondary password for your tax identity. It's not mandatory for federal filing, but some states (like NY, CA) use it as an anti-fraud measure. Your military status actually gives you additional identity verification pathways that civilians don't have access to.
Military families get special consideration. Check box M on Form 8948. Explains missing ID. IRS understands PCS complications. Won't delay federal processing.
This is really helpful information about Form 8948! I had no idea there was a specific checkbox for explaining missing ID documentation. As someone who moves frequently due to work, it's reassuring to know the IRS has procedures in place for these situations. Do you know if this form needs to be filed separately or if it's integrated into the main filing process?
For what it's worth, I've been getting 1099-INTs from Chase for the past 5 years and the state fields are always blank. Never had any issues with my tax returns because of it. I just enter the interest income amount on my state return and move on. The IRS and state tax departments get their information directly from the banks anyway.
Exactly! People overthink this stuff. The bank reports everything directly to the government already, so your return is really just confirming what they already know. As long as you report the correct interest amount, you're good.
This is such a common source of confusion for new taxpayers! I had the exact same panic when I first got a 1099-INT with blank state fields. What helped me understand it better is that the state ID number is really for the bank's internal reporting to state agencies, not something you need as a taxpayer. Think of it this way: Chase reports your interest income to both the IRS and your state tax authority behind the scenes. The 1099-INT they send you is basically just your copy of that information. Whether or not they fill in their state ID number on your copy doesn't change the fact that they've already done their reporting. When you file your state taxes, you're just confirming the income that your state already knows about from Chase's direct reporting. So don't stress about the blank fields - just report the interest amount and you'll be all set!
Chloe Mitchell
I appreciate everyone's insights here! As someone who's been dealing with basic itemized deductions for years, this discussion really confirms what I suspected - the audit protection is probably overkill for my situation. The suggestions about keeping good records and taking photos of receipts are spot on. I've actually started scanning everything into a folder on my computer right after I get receipts, which makes tax time so much easier. One thing that struck me from reading through all the comments is how the real value seems to be in understanding your actual audit risk rather than just buying insurance against it. The tools people mentioned for risk assessment and the service for actually reaching the IRS if needed sound way more practical than paying TurboTax extra money for something I'll probably never use. Think I'm going to skip the audit protection this year and put that money toward better record-keeping instead. Thanks everyone!
0 coins
Sofia Morales
β’Great decision! You're absolutely right that better record-keeping is a much smarter investment than audit protection for standard deductions. I started doing the same thing - scanning receipts immediately - and it's been a game changer. One tip that's helped me: I create a simple spreadsheet throughout the year tracking my charitable donations and medical expenses as they happen, with notes about where the receipts are stored. Makes it super easy to total everything up at tax time and I never have to hunt for documentation. Way better than paying TurboTax for "protection" I'd never need!
0 coins
Paolo Longo
Smart move skipping the audit protection! I've been filing with basic itemized deductions for over a decade and have never been audited. The IRS is really looking for bigger fish - people with complex business structures, unusually high deductions relative to income, or missing income. Your mortgage interest, charitable donations, and medical expenses are all backed up by third-party documentation (1098 forms, receipts, medical bills), which is exactly what you'd need to provide if questioned anyway. The "protection" doesn't change your actual tax liability or prevent issues - it just gives you someone to call if problems arise. I'd echo what others said about good record-keeping being your best protection. I keep a simple tax folder throughout the year and toss everything in there as I get it. Takes 5 minutes and costs nothing, versus paying TurboTax's inflated fees for peace of mind you probably don't need.
0 coins