I completely understand your stress about this - FBAR errors can feel overwhelming, especially on your first filing! The good news is that selecting the wrong "Type of Filer" box is definitely something you should and can easily fix with an amended filing. Since all your actual account information and financial data are correct, this falls into the category of a non-material error that you're voluntarily correcting. The IRS and FinCEN much prefer when taxpayers proactively fix mistakes rather than hoping they won't be noticed. Here's what I'd recommend: log back into the BSA E-Filing System and prepare an amended FBAR. When you get to the filing type section, select "Amended" and briefly explain in the text field something like "Correcting Type of Filer selection in Box 2." Make sure to reference your original BSA ID number so they can link the filings. The sooner you file the amendment, the better - there's no benefit to waiting. This type of voluntary correction of a form error (as opposed to hiding unreported accounts) is exactly the kind of compliance behavior they want to see. You're doing the right thing by fixing it!

I can relate to the anxiety you're feeling about this FBAR mistake - it's completely normal to be nervous about getting everything right, especially on your first filing! The consensus from everyone here is spot on: filing an amended FBAR is definitely the right approach for correcting the "Type of Filer" error. What might help ease your mind is knowing that the BSA E-Filing System is designed to handle these exact situations. When you log in to file the amendment, the system will guide you through indicating it's a correction to your previous filing. The fact that all your account information and financial data are accurate is the most important part - that shows you're making a good faith effort to comply properly. One small addition to the great advice already given: when you do file the amendment, you might want to save a copy of the confirmation screen or any reference numbers for your records. Having documentation that you proactively corrected the error can be helpful if any questions ever arise down the road. You're handling this exactly the right way by addressing it promptly rather than ignoring it. Take a deep breath - this is a very fixable situation!

This exact same thing just happened to me! Filed in March with direct deposit info I've used successfully for the past 3 years, and suddenly they switched to mailing a paper check. The "Where's My Refund" tool gives absolutely zero explanation - just says "your refund check is being mailed" with no reason why they made the switch. I'm on day 3 since the status changed and already getting anxious about when it will actually arrive. Based on all the experiences shared here, sounds like I should expect 2-3 weeks minimum. Really frustrating when you budget around having that money available immediately with direct deposit! Going to sign up for USPS Informed Delivery right now after seeing so many people recommend it. At least that way I'll get a heads up when it's finally coming. The lack of transparency from the IRS about why these switches happen is honestly the most annoying part - they just make these decisions and leave us completely in the dark. Thanks to everyone for sharing their timelines and experiences - makes me feel way less alone in dealing with this!

I had this exact same issue happen to me last year! The IRS randomly switched my refund from direct deposit to a paper check even though I'd been using the same bank account for 4 years straight. Turns out there was some kind of "verification flag" on my account that I never knew about. My check took exactly 18 days to arrive after the status changed to "mailed" - so you're probably looking at 2.5-3 weeks realistically. The waiting is absolutely brutal when you're expecting the money right away! One thing that really helped me was setting up USPS Informed Delivery (if you haven't already). You'll get an email every morning showing what mail is coming that day, so at least you'll know when the check is actually arriving instead of obsessively checking your mailbox every day like I did. The most frustrating part is that the IRS gives zero explanation for why they make these switches. I spent hours trying to figure out what triggered it and never got a real answer. Just one of those things we have to deal with unfortunately. Your check will definitely come though - just gotta be patient!

This has been such a helpful thread! I'm dealing with a similar situation at our accounting firm and was also questioning whether our software was handling the health insurance deduction correctly for partnerships. What really helped me understand this was realizing that the "double reduction" isn't actually double-dipping - it's two separate regulatory requirements working together. The guaranteed payment reduces QBI at the partnership level because it reduces ordinary business income before QBI is even calculated. Then the self-employed health insurance deduction on the individual return is separately excluded from QBI because the regulations specifically carve it out. I think the confusion comes from comparing it to the S-corp treatment, but as others have pointed out, the fundamental tax structures are different even when the economic result looks the same. Guaranteed payments have a specific definition and treatment under the partnership rules that's distinct from how S-corp health insurance reimbursements work. Thanks to everyone who shared the regulation citations and explanations - it's given me confidence to trust our software rather than trying to override what initially seemed like an error. Sometimes tax law really is more complex than the underlying business transaction!

As someone who's been wrestling with partnership QBI calculations for years, this thread perfectly captures the frustration so many of us feel with these rules! The distinction between economic substance and tax treatment is something that trips up even seasoned practitioners. What I've found helpful is explaining it to clients this way: think of guaranteed payments as the partnership "buying" services from you (including health insurance coverage), which reduces the partnership's income before QBI is even in the picture. Then on your personal return, you're getting a separate deduction for self-employed health insurance that has its own QBI exclusion rules. The S-corp comparison that started this discussion is really insightful - it shows how Congress created different rules for economically similar transactions depending on entity type. The S-corp health insurance fix was correcting an actual error in how software interpreted the regs, while the partnership treatment is working as (unfortunately) intended. One thing I'd add for anyone still struggling with this: consider running the calculation both ways on a test return to see the actual dollar impact. Often the "double reduction" feeling is worse than the actual tax difference, which can help you feel more confident about following the regs as written.

I'm 99% certain your accountant meant 100.00000% (with decimal places) and there was a miscommunication. S-corps often use multiple decimal places for precision with ownership percentages, especially with complex ownership structures. Ask your accountant if they meant 100% with several decimal places of precision, not 10,000,000%.

This is absolutely incorrect and you need to address this immediately before filing. Schedule K-1 allocation percentages represent your ownership stake and literally cannot exceed 100% - it's mathematically impossible. Even if you owned every single share of the company, you'd show 100%, not 10,000,000%. I suspect there's been a major miscommunication somewhere. Your 100,000,000 shares is just the number of shares you own, not a percentage. The percentage should be calculated as (your shares ÷ total outstanding shares) × 100. If you're the sole owner, that's 100%. If there are other shareholders, it would be some fraction of 100%. Please sit down with your accountant and ask them to walk through exactly how they calculated 10,000,000%. There's either a serious misunderstanding about what the form is asking for, or perhaps they meant something entirely different (like 100.000000% with decimal precision). Filing with 10,000,000% would almost certainly trigger an immediate audit flag since it's mathematically impossible. Don't sign anything until this gets cleared up properly.

Just be super careful about claiming 100% business use. The IRS scrutinizes this heavily, especially with vans that could potentially be used personally. Keep a detailed mileage log with the purpose of each trip. There's apps that can track this automatically. If you slip up and use it even once for personal purposes, you technically need to reduce your deduction by that percentage of personal use.

For a videographer using a Transit 100% for business, I'd lean toward purchasing if you plan to keep it long-term. Here's why: Transit cargo vans typically have a GVWR over 6,000 lbs, qualifying them as "heavy vehicles" with better depreciation rules. You can potentially deduct $30,200 in year one through Section 179, plus bonus depreciation on the remaining amount. The cash flow consideration is important though - leasing gives you lower monthly payments which might be better when you're building your client base. But if you have steady income and plan to keep the van 5+ years, the total tax savings from purchasing usually outweigh leasing. One practical tip: Get the exact GVWR specs for any Transit model you're considering. The base Transit-150 might be under 6,000 lbs, but the Transit-250/350 cargo vans are definitely over, which makes a huge difference for your deductions. Also factor in that cargo vans hold their value well in the current market, so you'll have equity if you buy versus nothing if you lease.