Make sure you and your parents aren't BOTH claiming you!! My cousin and her mom both claimed her and they both got audited. The IRS gets really mad about this and it's a huge hassle to fix. Talk to your parents before filing!!!! Don't just decide on your own!

Hey Omar! I was in almost the exact same situation when I was 22 - living at home, working part-time, parents covering most expenses. Here's what I learned: The IRS has specific tests to determine if you're a dependent, and it sounds like you probably qualify as your parents' dependent since they're providing more than half your support (housing, food, health insurance are usually the biggest expenses). But here's the key thing everyone's touching on - you need to actually RUN THE NUMBERS both ways. Don't just guess! Even if you legally qualify as their dependent, sometimes the family comes out ahead with you filing independently, especially if your parents are in higher tax brackets where benefits phase out. A few things to consider: - If they claim you, they get education credits (American Opportunity Credit can be worth up to $2,500) - Your standard deduction is the same either way ($13,850 for 2023) - But if you file independently, YOU get any education credits instead My advice: Use tax software to model both scenarios before anyone files. Show your parents the numbers - they might actually prefer you file independently if the total family benefit is higher. And definitely coordinate so you don't both claim you (that's an audit nightmare)! The "right" answer depends on your specific numbers, not just the general rules.

One thing nobody mentioned yet - check if your spouse has ever been a victim of identity theft. My wife and I had a similar rejection and after weeks of back and forth, we discovered someone had filed a fraudulent return using her SSN the previous year, which put a flag on her SSN in the IRS system. We had to go through the identity theft resolution process with the IRS and file an affidavit. It was a pain but eventually got resolved. Might be worth checking your credit reports too just to be safe.

I went through something very similar last year! The key thing to understand is that the IRS rejection doesn't always tell you the exact problem - it just says there's a mismatch. In my case, it wasn't the SSN itself but how my husband's name was formatted. Here's what I'd recommend doing in order: 1. **Check the Social Security card character by character** - Look for spaces, hyphens, periods, or middle initials that might be on the card but not in your return (or vice versa). Even a missing period after a middle initial can cause rejection. 2. **Call SSA first, not the IRS** - The Social Security Administration at 1-800-772-1213 can tell you exactly how your spouse's name appears in their system. This is what the IRS cross-references against. 3. **Don't assume last year's format is still correct** - Sometimes the IRS tightens their matching algorithms or updates their systems, causing previously accepted formats to suddenly get rejected. If the SSA confirms everything matches and you're still getting rejected, then it might be worth exploring other causes like identity theft flags or prior year discrepancies. But start with the name formatting - that's the culprit in about 80% of these cases. The good news is once you identify the exact issue, the fix is usually simple and your amended return should process quickly!

I actually maintain a spreadsheet for exactly this purpose! After getting burned by surprise non-qualified dividends a few years back, I started tracking the treaty status for different countries. The IRS doesn't make it easy, but here are some key resources I've found helpful: 1) Publication 515 (Withholding of Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Entities) has the most comprehensive treaty information 2) The IRS website has a "United States Income Tax Treaties - A to Z" page that lists all treaties, but you have to dig into each one to see if it includes the information exchange provisions 3) Most importantly, look for treaties that reference "Article 26" or similar language about "Exchange of Information" - that's usually the qualifying provision From my research, countries like Canada, UK, Germany, Netherlands, and most EU countries have the comprehensive treaties that allow OTC stocks to produce qualified dividends. Meanwhile, China, Japan (surprisingly!), and several other Asian countries have basic treaties that don't include the required exchange provisions. One thing that really surprised me was that some countries you'd expect to have comprehensive treaties (like Japan) actually don't for this specific purpose. It's not necessarily correlated with how developed or trustworthy the country is from a trade perspective. Happy to share my spreadsheet template if anyone's interested - just took me forever to compile all this info and would hate for others to have to start from scratch!

This thread has been incredibly enlightening! I've been holding TCEHY for about two years now and just accepted that the dividends were non-qualified without really understanding why. The explanation about China's tax treaty lacking the specific "exchange of information program" provision finally makes it clear. What's particularly frustrating is that this seems like something that should be much more transparent upfront. When you're researching foreign stocks on broker platforms, they'll show you all sorts of data about the company, but nowhere does it clearly indicate "hey, by the way, dividends from this stock will be taxed at your ordinary income rate instead of the preferential rate." For those of us building long-term dividend portfolios, this can significantly impact the after-tax returns. I'm now wondering if I should reconsider some of my Chinese ADR positions and maybe look at alternatives that trade directly on major US exchanges instead of OTC. @Geoff Richards - I'd also love to get a copy of that spreadsheet template if you're willing to share it! Having a clear reference for which countries have qualifying treaties would be invaluable for future investment decisions. It's amazing how much research we have to do ourselves on tax implications that really should be more readily available.

I had the exact same experience with the ID verification after switching from TurboTax to FreeTaxUSA this year! It's definitely frustrating when you've been filing the same way for years and suddenly get flagged. One thing that helped me track progress was setting up the IRS online account to view my tax transcript - it shows much more detail than Where's My Refund. Look for codes like 971 (which indicates identity verification) and 570 (which means your account is frozen pending verification). Once you see a code 571, that means the freeze has been released and your refund should process within a few days. The whole process took about 12 business days for me from verification to actual refund deposit. I know it's nerve-wracking when you're used to getting your refund on schedule, but it sounds like you did everything correctly. Just give it a few more days and you should see movement!

This is such a relief to read! I'm going through the exact same thing right now - filed with FreeTaxUSA for the first time after years of using TurboTax, and got hit with the ID.me verification request. I was so worried I'd done something wrong or that my return was flagged for audit. I completed the ID.me process about a week ago and have been obsessively checking Where's My Refund every day with no updates. Reading all these experiences makes me feel so much better - it sounds like 7-14 business days is totally normal for the verification processing. I'm definitely going to set up that IRS online account to check my transcript like others suggested. It's frustrating that the IRS doesn't communicate these timelines better, but at least now I know this is just part of their new security measures and not a sign that something's wrong with my return. Thanks everyone for sharing your experiences!

Don't forget about Form 8949! A lot of new investors miss this. Schedule D is actually a summary form, and Form 8949 is where you list the details. If your 1099-B is complete and accurate (with all cost basis reported to the IRS), you might be able to skip detailed reporting on 8949 and just put the totals directly on Schedule D. But if you have any transactions where the cost basis wasn't reported to the IRS, or if you need to make adjustments to what your broker reported, you'll need to complete Form 8949 as well. FreeTaxUSA should walk you through this, but just be aware of it. For cryptocurrency specifically, most brokers don't report cost basis to the IRS yet, so you'll likely need to report those transactions in a separate section of Form 8949.

As someone who went through this exact nightmare last year with about 80 trades across multiple platforms, I feel your pain! Here's what I wish someone had told me from the start: First, don't panic - FreeTaxUSA really does handle this well once you understand the process. The key thing to remember is that Schedule D is just a summary of your gains and losses, grouped by categories (short-term vs long-term, covered vs non-covered). Here's my step-by-step approach that worked: 1. Download all your 1099-B forms and any supplemental statements from your brokers 2. Separate transactions into the four main buckets: short-term covered, short-term non-covered, long-term covered, long-term non-covered 3. For each bucket, add up total proceeds, total cost basis, and any wash sale adjustments 4. Enter these summary totals into FreeTaxUSA For your crypto transactions, those will likely be in the "non-covered" category since most brokers don't report crypto cost basis to the IRS yet. Make sure to keep those separate from your stock trades. The dividends you mentioned are reported separately on Schedule B, so don't worry about mixing those with your Schedule D calculations. One last tip: double and triple-check that your final totals match exactly what's on your 1099-B forms. Even a penny difference can trigger IRS correspondence later. Take your time - it's better to be accurate than fast!