


Ask the community...
I'm wondering if anyone knows what happens if only part of your loan is forgiven? I took out a $35,000 loan for my business, but only $24,000 was forgiven because I didn't meet all the requirements. Do I only report the forgiven portion as income?
Yes, you only need to report the portion that was actually forgiven. The $24,000 that was forgiven would potentially be considered income (unless there's a specific exemption for your loan program), while the remaining $11,000 is still a loan that you'll need to repay according to your loan terms. Make sure you get documentation from your lender that clearly shows how much was forgiven and how much you're still responsible for repaying. Keep your loan statements showing the original loan amount, the forgiven portion, and the remaining balance.
As a small business owner who went through this exact situation, I can share some practical advice. First, the key thing to understand is that forgivable loans are treated differently depending on the specific program. For example, PPP loans that were forgiven are NOT taxable income at the federal level due to specific legislation, but other forgivable loan programs might be. Here's what I recommend for documentation: Keep everything in a dedicated folder - loan application, approval letter, all bank statements showing how you used the funds, payroll records if applicable, rent/utility receipts, and most importantly, your forgiveness application and approval documentation. I also created a simple spreadsheet tracking every dollar of how the loan funds were used. One thing that caught me off guard - even if the forgiven loan isn't taxable income, you might not be able to deduct the business expenses you paid with those funds. This is called "double dipping" and the IRS doesn't allow it for some programs. Make sure you understand this rule for your specific loan type. Also, don't wait until tax season to figure this out. Contact your lender now to understand exactly what tax documents they'll send you and when. Some send 1099-C forms, others don't depending on the program. Getting clarity early will save you a lot of stress later!
This is really helpful advice! I'm in a similar situation and have been putting off dealing with the documentation side of things. Quick question - when you say to keep bank statements showing how you used the funds, do you mean just the statements from the account where the loan was deposited, or should I also track any transfers between business accounts? I moved some of the money around to different accounts before spending it and I'm worried that might complicate things if I get audited.
Before you make any moves, I'd strongly recommend getting a clear understanding of your annuity's surrender schedule. That 8% surrender fee you mentioned could vary significantly depending on how long you've held the contract and what year you're in. Some annuities have declining surrender charges that drop each year, so waiting even 6-12 months might save you thousands. Others have "free withdrawal" provisions that let you take out 10-15% annually without surrender charges - you could potentially do partial rollovers over a few years to minimize fees. Also, double-check if your annuity qualifies for any exceptions to surrender charges, like financial hardship or unemployment. Some contracts have escape clauses that aren't well-publicized. The tax-free rollover strategy everyone's discussing is solid, but make sure the math still works after factoring in those surrender fees. Sometimes it's worth staying put a bit longer if the charges are going to drop significantly.
This is excellent advice about checking the surrender schedule! I just pulled out my original annuity contract and you're absolutely right - the surrender charges do decline each year. I'm currently in year 4 of a 7-year surrender period, so I'm at 8% now but it drops to 6% next year and 4% the year after that. The partial withdrawal option is interesting too - I need to look more carefully at my contract to see if I have that 10-15% annual free withdrawal provision. If I do, spreading this out over a couple years might make way more sense than taking the big surrender charge hit all at once. Thanks for pointing out the hardship exceptions too. I hadn't even thought to look for those, though I don't think my situation would qualify. But it's good to know they exist for others who might be in tougher spots. Definitely going to run the numbers on waiting versus moving now. The opportunity cost of staying in this underperforming annuity versus the surrender fees is exactly the kind of analysis I need to do before making this decision.
Just want to add one more consideration that's helped me with similar decisions - don't forget to factor in the "lost time" cost of staying in the underperforming annuity. Even if waiting a year saves you 2% in surrender charges, if your annuity is earning 2-3% while the market could potentially earn 7-10%, you might actually lose more money by waiting. I created a simple break-even analysis when I was in a similar spot: I calculated how much the surrender charge savings would be versus the potential opportunity cost of keeping money in the low-performing investment for another year. In my case, even with a 6% surrender charge, moving the money immediately to index funds came out ahead over any timeline longer than 18 months. Of course, this assumes market performance, which isn't guaranteed. But at your age, you have decades for compound growth to work in your favor. Sometimes paying the exit fee is worth it just to stop the bleeding and get your money working harder for your future. The partial withdrawal strategy Miguel mentioned is definitely worth exploring though - best of both worlds if your contract allows it!
Just to add another perspective on timing - if you're still working at age 73+ and participating in your current employer's 401(k), you might be able to delay RMDs from that specific 401(k) until you actually retire (assuming you don't own 5% or more of the company). This is called the "still working exception." However, this only applies to your current employer's plan - you'd still need to take RMDs from IRAs and previous employers' 401(k)s. If you have old 401(k)s sitting around, you might want to consider rolling them into IRAs for easier management, but be aware this would subject them to the normal RMD rules without the still-working exception. This won't help with your 2024 RMD situation since that's from an IRA, but it's something to keep in mind for future planning if you're still employed.
That's a really helpful point about the still working exception! I wasn't aware that it only applies to your current employer's 401(k). I have two old 401(k)s from previous jobs that I've been meaning to consolidate - sounds like rolling them into an IRA might make management easier but would definitely subject them to RMD rules. For someone in the original poster's situation though, this is good to keep in mind for future years. If they're still working, they might have some flexibility with their current 401(k) contributions and distributions that could help with overall retirement tax planning.
One important detail to clarify about the tax year reporting - while your March 2025 withdrawal will be reported on your 2025 tax return, make sure you understand how this affects your quarterly estimated tax payments if you make them. Since you'll have potentially two RMDs worth of income in 2025 (your delayed 2024 RMD plus your regular 2025 RMD), you may need to adjust your estimated payments to avoid underpayment penalties. The IRS expects you to pay taxes throughout the year, not just when you file your return. If you decide to take your 2024 RMD in December 2024 instead, you could spread this tax burden more evenly and potentially avoid having to make large estimated tax payments in 2025. Just something to factor into your planning beyond just which tax return the income appears on.
This is such an important point about estimated taxes that often gets overlooked! I'm dealing with a similar situation and hadn't even thought about the quarterly payment implications. If you're used to having taxes withheld from regular paychecks, it's easy to forget that IRA distributions don't have automatic withholding unless you specifically request it. Would it make sense to have taxes withheld directly from the RMD distributions themselves? I'm wondering if that might be simpler than trying to calculate and make estimated payments separately. Has anyone tried this approach?
This thread has been absolutely invaluable! I'm dealing with a similar situation right now helping my disabled brother with his taxes, and I was feeling completely overwhelmed until I found this discussion. What really strikes me is how this community transformed what seemed like an impossible problem into a step-by-step action plan. I'm planning to try the Claimyr service first since several people had success with it, but I love having all these backup options - the AI document analysis tools, business registry searches, and even the library database suggestion. One thing I wanted to add for future readers: if you're helping someone with memory issues or health problems, consider reaching out to their former doctors' offices or medical providers. Sometimes employer information is buried in old insurance authorization forms or medical history paperwork that patients don't even realize they have. The emphasis throughout this thread on documenting your efforts really gives me confidence that even if we can't find the complete employer information, showing good faith effort will be enough for the IRS. That takes a lot of the pressure off and makes the whole process feel much more manageable. Thank you to everyone who shared their expertise and experiences - this is exactly the kind of community support that makes navigating complex tax situations possible for regular people like us!
This is such a thoughtful addition about checking with medical providers for employer information! I hadn't considered that doctors' offices might have insurance authorization forms or other paperwork with complete employer details. That's especially relevant for people dealing with health issues who might not remember or have access to traditional employment records. Your approach of planning to try Claimyr first while having backup options ready really seems like the smart way to tackle this. It's reassuring to see how this thread has given you (and others) a clear action plan instead of just feeling stuck and overwhelmed. The point about documenting efforts is so important and something that's come up multiple times from the tax professionals in this discussion. It really does seem like the IRS understands these situations happen and appreciates when people make genuine attempts to get complete information. What I find most amazing about this whole thread is how it started with one person's specific problem and evolved into this comprehensive resource that's helping multiple people facing similar challenges. It's a perfect example of how community knowledge sharing can turn individual struggles into collective solutions. Good luck with your brother's taxes - with all these strategies, you should definitely be able to get it sorted out!
This has been such an incredible thread to follow! As someone who works in tax resolution, I see cases like this regularly, and I'm impressed by how comprehensive the solutions have become through everyone's contributions. I wanted to add one more angle that might help future readers: the Department of Labor's OSHA database. If your friend's workplace ever had any safety inspections or violations, the records often contain complete employer information including full legal business names and accurate EINs. You can search by location and industry type, which could be helpful when you have fragments like "DECI" and a street number. Another resource I've found useful is the Better Business Bureau database - businesses often register with more complete information there than what appears on tax documents, and you can search by partial business names and geographic areas. What really impresses me about this discussion is how it demonstrates that there's almost always a solution when you know where to look. Between IRS callback services, AI document analysis, business registries, professional databases, and all the creative detective work people have shared, someone dealing with incomplete employer information has so many more options than they might realize. The key takeaway seems to be persistence and trying multiple approaches rather than getting stuck on just one method. This thread should definitely be a reference guide for anyone facing similar challenges!
This is such valuable professional insight! The OSHA database suggestion is brilliant - I never would have thought that workplace safety records could be a source for complete employer information. That's especially clever for cases where you have location details and industry clues but are missing the full business name. The Better Business Bureau angle is really smart too. Businesses do often register there with their complete legal names even when they use abbreviations everywhere else. It's another one of those overlooked resources that could save someone hours of detective work. What strikes me most about this entire discussion is exactly what you said - there's almost always a solution when you know where to look. When I first read the original post, it seemed like such an impossible situation. But seeing all these different approaches and resources that people have shared, from AI tools to government databases to creative LinkedIn searches, it's amazing how many angles there are to attack this kind of problem. The persistence message really resonates with me as someone new to navigating complex tax situations. It's reassuring to know that if one method doesn't work, there are literally dozens of other approaches to try. This thread has become like the ultimate troubleshooting guide for employer identification issues. Thanks for adding these additional professional resources - every option helps when you're trying to solve these puzzles!
Jenna Sloan
The IRS can also cross-reference your income reported on Schedule C with your claimed retirement contributions to see if they're reasonable. If you're claiming max contributions but only reporting modest business income, that might trigger questions. Make sure your profit sharing contributions actually align with your reported business profits!
0 coins
Christian Burns
β’This happened to my brother last year! He claimed the full employer contribution but his Schedule C profit wasn't high enough to justify it. Got a letter from the IRS about 6 months after filing.
0 coins
Chloe Delgado
Another important point about IRS verification - they also use data matching algorithms that compare your reported retirement contributions across multiple forms. For example, if you claim a solo 401k deduction on your 1040 but the amounts don't match what's reported on your business return, that can trigger automated flags. I learned this the hard way when I made an error calculating my maximum employer contribution. The IRS computer systems caught the discrepancy between my Schedule C net profit and the employer contribution I claimed. Even though it was an honest mistake, I had to provide extensive documentation to prove my contributions were legitimate. My advice: run your numbers through multiple calculators before making contributions, and keep a spreadsheet showing exactly how you calculated both your employee and employer contribution limits. This saved me during my correspondence with the IRS because I could show my methodology even though I made an arithmetic error.
0 coins
NebulaNomad
β’This is really helpful - I hadn't thought about the cross-referencing between forms! Do you know if there's a safe harbor amount or percentage where the IRS algorithms are less likely to flag contributions? Like if I keep my total retirement contributions under a certain percentage of my Schedule C income, would that reduce audit risk? I'm planning my 2025 contributions now and want to be strategic about avoiding unnecessary scrutiny while still maximizing my tax-advantaged savings.
0 coins