My brother went through this and found out something interesting - in some states, judges are actually starting to recognize this inequity. His divorce was in Colorado, and the judge actually specified in their decree that he gets to claim their daughter in even years and his ex gets odd years, DESPITE him not being the custodial parent. The judge specifically cited the fact that he pays significant support as the reason. Has anyone else seen this trend in their state? It seems like courts are slowly recognizing that the old "custodial parent gets everything" approach isn't always fair, especially when the non-custodial parent is providing significant financial support.

This is such a frustrating situation that highlights a real gap in how our tax system handles modern family structures. You're absolutely right that it feels unfair when you're contributing significantly to your child's expenses but getting zero tax recognition for it. One thing that might help is documenting everything meticulously - every support payment, medical expense, school cost, etc. Even if you can't claim your child now, having detailed records becomes crucial if you ever go back to court to modify your agreement or if circumstances change. I've also seen some non-custodial parents successfully argue for modifications to their divorce decrees years later when they can demonstrate they're paying substantially more than the original support calculation anticipated. Courts are increasingly recognizing that the financial reality often doesn't match the initial custody arrangement. The system definitely needs reform to better reflect the actual financial contributions both parents make. In the meantime, it's worth consulting with a family law attorney about whether your specific situation might qualify for a modification, especially if your support payments represent a large percentage of your child's total expenses.

Just to add another perspective - make sure the brokerage is aware these are inherited assets. Sometimes they report the wrong cost basis information to the IRS on the 1099-B if they don't know the securities were inherited. I had an issue where Fidelity reported the original cost basis on the 1099-B instead of the stepped-up basis, and it caused a huge headache. Had to file a corrected tax return because the IRS flagged the discrepancy. Now I always double-check that the brokerage has properly recorded inherited assets in my account.

One thing nobody's mentioned - if you have a lot of capital losses this year from these inherited funds, remember you can only deduct up to $3,000 against ordinary income. BUT you can carry forward any unused losses to future tax years. So if you ended up with say $10,000 in losses, you'd use $3,000 this year and then have $7,000 to use in future years. Given the market volatility lately, this might actually be a nice tax benefit spread over multiple years.

Just to add my experience - I had code 570 last year and it cleared on its own after about 2 weeks. For PATH Act returns they do extra verification which is why you see that code. It changed to 571 (which removes the 570 hold) right around February 16th, and my refund was deposited on February 22nd. As long as there are no other issues, you should be fine!

One thing to remember about the PATH Act holds - they affect ALL returns with EITC/ACTC, even if you've been filing the same way for years without issues. The 570 code is just this year's way of marking returns subject to the hold. The first refunds for PATH Act returns won't go out until February 15th at the earliest, and many will be a few days after that. It's annoying but it's just how they try to prevent fraudulent claims.

10 Does anyone know if the rules are different for minors with crypto? I'm wondering because OP is 18 now but might have been 17 when the transaction happened depending on timing.

Don't stress about this at all! You're definitely not required to file a tax return in your situation. With no income and just a tiny crypto loss, you're way below any filing thresholds. The Coinbase email is just a standard notice they have to send to everyone - it doesn't mean you personally need to do anything. Since you actually lost money (even though it was only 15 cents), there's no tax liability anyway. As a student with no income, you won't need to worry about filing taxes until you start earning above the standard deduction amount or have significant investment gains. Your $1.35 Bitcoin experiment definitely doesn't qualify! Save that email for your records if you want, but you can relax about any immediate tax obligations.

Be careful about assuming no tax topic means everything is fine! I had this exact situation last year and ended up with: • Return stuck in processing for 11 weeks • Had to call IRS multiple times • Eventually found out I had an ID verification hold • No notification was ever sent The IRS system doesn't always notify you of issues. If you're past 21 days with no movement, call them immediately. Don't wait like I did.

I'm in the exact same situation! Filed on March 1st, accepted same day, and WMR just shows "Return Received" with no tax topic. I was starting to panic thinking something was wrong with my return. Reading through everyone's responses here is really reassuring - it sounds like this is actually pretty normal during the early processing stages. I'm going to check my transcript like several people suggested and try to be more patient. Thanks for posting this question because I was about to drive myself crazy checking WMR every few hours!