Hi, I'm a green card holder who had this exact situation for 3 years. I filed every year even with no income to report. When I applied for citizenship, the officer specifically asked for all my tax returns and seemed pleased I had consistently filed, even with zeros. Just my personal experience, but I'd 100% recommend filing.

I went through this exact situation with my brother who's a green card holder. After researching extensively and consulting with an immigration attorney, here's what I learned: Technically, if your spouse truly has zero income and falls below the filing threshold, they're not legally required to file. However, there are several compelling reasons to file anyway: 1. **Immigration benefits**: When applying for citizenship, USCIS often requests tax transcripts as evidence of compliance with U.S. laws. Having a consistent filing history, even with zero income, demonstrates good faith effort to follow tax obligations. 2. **Documentation**: Filing creates an official record that your spouse was present in the U.S. and aware of their tax responsibilities, which can be valuable for future immigration processes. 3. **No penalties**: There's no downside to filing a zero return - it's free using IRS Free File options and takes minimal time. 4. **Peace of mind**: Eliminates any uncertainty about compliance and creates a paper trail showing responsible behavior. My brother filed zero returns for two years before getting work authorization, and during his citizenship interview, the officer specifically asked for tax returns. Having them available made the process much smoother. I'd strongly recommend filing - it's a simple safeguard that protects their immigration status.

If your son's babymama (the ex) was the custodial parent for part of the year before the divorce was finalized, make sure she's not planning to claim the child too. Could cause major headaches. Whoever has the child for more nights during the year is considered the custodial parent for tax purposes, regardless of what the divorce decree says!! Just speaking from experience...caused me a 3 month refund delay last year.

This is a complex situation that requires careful planning to maximize your family's tax benefits. Based on what you've described, here are the key considerations: **For claiming your son as a dependent:** Since he's working part-time (about 14 hours weekly) and receiving minimal child support, his total income is likely well under the $4,800 threshold for 2024. If you're providing more than half his support (food, housing, etc.), you can claim him as a qualifying relative. **For your granddaughter:** This is where strategy becomes important. You have two main options: 1. **You claim both:** You get dependency exemptions for both, but miss out on EIC benefits since your income is likely too high. 2. **Split approach:** You claim your son as a dependent, but let him file his own return claiming your granddaughter. He could potentially receive significant EIC benefits (up to $3,995 for one child in 2024) plus the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit. **My recommendation:** Run the numbers both ways. The "split" approach often works better financially for families in your situation because the EIC and Child Tax Credit benefits for lower-income filers can exceed the dependency exemption value for higher-income taxpayers. Also verify the custody timeline - since the divorce was finalized in November and he got primary custody, make sure your granddaughter lived with your household for more than half the year to avoid conflicts with the ex-wife's potential claim. Consider consulting a tax professional to run both scenarios with your actual numbers.

One thing nobody mentioned yet - if your property is in a federally declared disaster area and the damage relates to that disaster, different rules might apply. Worth checking if your water damage was from a qualifying event, as this can change how you can deduct certain expenses.

Based on your description, this sounds like it could qualify as repairs rather than improvements since you're restoring the property to its previous condition due to necessary fixes. The key is documenting that these expenses are restoring damaged elements rather than upgrading them. A few important considerations for your $25,000+ project: 1. **Document everything thoroughly** - Take extensive photos of the damage before work begins, get written assessments from contractors stating the work is necessary for habitability, and keep detailed invoices showing exactly what was repaired vs. replaced. 2. **Consider the "restoration" rules** - The IRS has specific guidance on when extensive work qualifies as restoring property to its previous condition rather than improving it. Since your ceiling is collapsing and walls have water damage, this strengthens your case. 3. **Break down your expenses** - Some portions might be deductible repairs while others could be capital improvements. For example, if you're replacing damaged drywall with identical materials, that's likely a repair. But if you upgrade to higher-quality materials, that portion might be an improvement. 4. **Look into the Safe Harbor election** - If your property qualifies, you might be able to immediately deduct improvements under certain thresholds rather than depreciating them. Given the complexity and dollar amount involved, I'd strongly recommend consulting with a tax professional who specializes in rental property before starting the work. They can help you structure the project and documentation to maximize your deductions while staying compliant with IRS rules.

I actually had a similar concern when I first started filing early a few years ago. What helped ease my mind was understanding that the IRS processes millions of 941 forms and they're really looking for mathematical errors, missed payments, or inconsistencies - not the timing of when you filed. The key things that would actually trigger flags are: significant discrepancies between quarters without explanation, math errors on the form, or patterns that suggest underreporting of wages. Filing early when you genuinely have no more payroll activity is actually considered responsible business practice. If you're still nervous about it, you could always call the IRS business tax line to confirm (though getting through can be challenging). But based on everything I've read and experienced, you're absolutely fine to file now if you're certain about no additional wages this quarter.

I can definitely relate to wanting to get everything wrapped up before the year ends! I've been in your exact situation and can confirm that filing your 941 early is absolutely fine when you know you won't have additional payroll activity. One thing that might give you additional peace of mind - when I filed my Q4 2023 form in mid-December, I actually received my processing confirmation from the IRS faster than usual. I think this is because they're not as swamped with returns in December compared to their January rush. Just make sure you're confident about no more wages for the quarter. I always double-check things like year-end bonuses, final expense reimbursements, or any contractors who might need to be paid before December 31st. Once you're certain, go ahead and file - it's much better than scrambling in January when you're dealing with other year-end tax deadlines. The IRS actually appreciates businesses that are proactive about their tax obligations rather than waiting until the last minute. You're showing good faith by filing promptly when your obligations are complete.

I've been dealing with similar issues with Robinhood's options wash sale reporting. One thing that helped me understand the problem better was pulling my own trade history and manually calculating what should and shouldn't be wash sales based on the IRS criteria. For options, the key factors are: same underlying stock, same strike price, AND same expiration date. If any of these differ, there's a strong argument that they're not "substantially identical." However, Robinhood's system seems to flag anything with the same underlying as a potential wash sale, which is overly broad. In your PYPL case, if you never repurchased options with identical terms within the 30-day window, those definitely shouldn't be wash sales. The $0.00 profit/loss display is almost certainly a system glitch - I've seen this happen when their automated calculations get confused by expired contracts. My advice: Document everything with specific transaction dates and contract details. When you contact support, reference the specific IRS Publication 550 language about "substantially identical securities" and ask them to review each flagged transaction individually rather than relying on their automated system. It's frustrating, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease with Robinhood. Keep escalating until you reach someone who actually understands options taxation rather than just reading from a script.

I've been following this thread closely as I'm dealing with a similar situation. Just wanted to add another perspective on the "substantially identical" issue that might help others. I had a case last year where I was trading AAPL options - sold some $150 calls expiring in March at a loss, then bought $155 calls expiring in April within the wash sale period. Robinhood flagged this as a wash sale, but when I challenged it, they eventually agreed it shouldn't have been flagged since both the strike price AND expiration date were different. The key insight I learned from my tax attorney is that the IRS applies the "substantially identical" test very strictly for options. Even a $5 difference in strike price or one day difference in expiration is enough to make them NOT substantially identical. This is different from stocks where small differences might still be considered substantially identical. What really helped me was creating a simple table showing: - Original contract: Underlying, Strike, Expiration, Sale Date - Replacement contract: Underlying, Strike, Expiration, Purchase Date - Days between transactions - Why they're NOT substantially identical This visual format made it much easier for Robinhood's tax team to understand why their automated system was wrong. I'd recommend anyone dealing with this issue to document it the same way - it really cuts through the confusion and gives them something concrete to work with. For what it's worth, after getting my corrected 1099, my additional deductible losses were about $8,400. Definitely worth the effort to fight these incorrect wash sale designations.