IRS

Can't reach IRS? Claimyr connects you to a live IRS agent in minutes.

Claimyr is a pay-as-you-go service. We do not charge a recurring subscription.



Fox KTVUABC 7CBSSan Francisco Chronicle

Using Claimyr will:

  • Connect you to a human agent at the IRS
  • Skip the long phone menu
  • Call the correct department
  • Redial until on hold
  • Forward a call to your phone with reduced hold time
  • Give you free callbacks if the IRS drops your call

If I could give 10 stars I would

If I could give 10 stars I would If I could give 10 stars I would Such an amazing service so needed during the times when EDD almost never picks up Claimyr gets me on the phone with EDD every time without fail faster. A much needed service without Claimyr I would have never received the payment I needed to support me during my postpartum recovery. Thank you so much Claimyr!


Really made a difference

Really made a difference, save me time and energy from going to a local office for making the call.


Worth not wasting your time calling for hours.

Was a bit nervous or untrusting at first, but my calls went thru. First time the wait was a bit long but their customer chat line on their page was helpful and put me at ease that I would receive my call. Today my call dropped because of EDD and Claimyr heard my concern on the same chat and another call was made within the hour.


An incredibly helpful service

An incredibly helpful service! Got me connected to a CA EDD agent without major hassle (outside of EDD's agents dropping calls – which Claimyr has free protection for). If you need to file a new claim and can't do it online, pay the $ to Claimyr to get the process started. Absolutely worth it!


Consistent,frustration free, quality Service.

Used this service a couple times now. Before I'd call 200 times in less than a weak frustrated as can be. But using claimyr with a couple hours of waiting i was on the line with an representative or on hold. Dropped a couple times but each reconnected not long after and was mission accomplished, thanks to Claimyr.


IT WORKS!! Not a scam!

I tried for weeks to get thru to EDD PFL program with no luck. I gave this a try thinking it may be a scam. OMG! It worked and They got thru within an hour and my claim is going to finally get paid!! I upgraded to the $60 call. Best $60 spent!

Read all of our Trustpilot reviews


Ask the community...

  • DO post questions about your issues.
  • DO answer questions and support each other.
  • DO post tips & tricks to help folks.
  • DO NOT post call problems here - there is a support tab at the top for that :)

Zara Malik

•

Mines been doing the same thing since March. Starting to think we're never getting our money back fr fr

0 coins

Freya Larsen

•

dont say that 😭 i need this money so bad

0 coins

Luca Marino

•

what codes do u see on ur transcript? that matters more than the as of date tbh

0 coins

@Freya Larsen I feel you! The transcript codes are confusing AF. Look for code 150 return (filed ,)846 refund (issued ,)or 570/571 hold (codes .)If you see 570 that usually means there s'a hold on your refund for review. The key ones to watch are in the 800s - those show actual refund activity!

0 coins

Dylan Cooper

•

@Scarlett Forster thanks for breaking that down! super helpful. gonna check my transcript again for those codes. hopefully i dont have a 570 😬

0 coins

Can I Offset Self-Rental Income with Accumulated Passive Losses?

We've got a situation with our rental properties that I'm trying to figure out for our 2024 tax filing. My spouse and I created two LLCs last year - moved property from LLC #1 to LLC #2, and now LLC #1 pays rent to LLC #2. We're 50/50 partners in both (just filed to convert LLC #1 to an S-Corp starting 2025). LLC #1 makes good money, and LLC #2 brings in about $45k annually after we account for expenses and deductions. Separately, we personally own 2 residential rental properties that have built up passive losses totaling around $39k over the years. These properties are finally starting to generate income, so our plan was to use those accumulated passive losses to offset the rental income each year until we've used up all the losses. Our tax accountant just sent our returns for review and surprised me with an approach I wasn't expecting. She's claiming a safe harbor for both personal residential properties (we did put in over 250 hours working on them this year) and says this lets us use ALL our accumulated passive losses ($39k) against the income from LLC #2 ($45k). But I thought self-rental income was considered non-passive and couldn't be offset by passive losses? Can I actually offset self-rental income (non-passive) with passive losses from our residential properties if we claim this safe harbor? When I questioned this strategy, she immediately suggested filing an extension while she "does more research." Honestly, this plus some other recent mistakes has me losing confidence in her advice despite working with her for a decade. I need a new tax professional but I'm stuck with her for now, so I'm looking for some guidance here.

Roger Romero

•

Has anyone ever successfully used Form 8082 to take a position contrary to their K-1? My CPA says I should just go with what the partnership reports and not try to recharacterize anything on my personal return.

0 coins

Anna Kerber

•

I've used Form 8082 before when I disagreed with how my K-1 characterized certain income. It's definitely an option, but be prepared for potential pushback. Make sure you have solid documentation for your position because it will likely trigger additional scrutiny. In my case, it was about passive vs. non-passive characterization too.

0 coins

Roger Romero

•

Thanks for sharing your experience. Did filing the 8082 trigger an audit or any follow-up questions from the IRS? I'm worried about creating unnecessary attention but also want to take the correct position on my tax return.

0 coins

Daniel White

•

Your instincts are absolutely correct to question this approach. The self-rental rule is pretty clear - when you rent property to a business you materially participate in, that rental income becomes non-passive regardless of other elections or designations. This is codified in Reg. 1.469-2(f)(6) and is designed to prevent exactly what your CPA is suggesting. The Real Estate Professional safe harbor (Section 469(c)(7)) can help recharacterize your residential rental losses from passive to non-passive if you meet the 750-hour test and materially participate. However, this doesn't change the fact that your LLC #2 income from renting to LLC #1 is already non-passive due to the self-rental rules. Here's the key issue: even if both activities end up being non-passive, you still need to consider whether they can be properly grouped together under the activity grouping rules. The IRS looks at factors like geographical location, interdependence, and whether they form an "appropriate economic unit." Your CPA's immediate suggestion to file an extension when questioned is a red flag. A competent tax professional should be able to explain their reasoning clearly, especially on something as fundamental as passive activity loss rules. I'd strongly recommend getting a second opinion from a CPA who specializes in real estate taxation before proceeding with this strategy.

0 coins

Carmen Diaz

•

This is exactly the kind of detailed explanation I was hoping to find! The regulation citation (1.469-2(f)(6)) is really helpful - I can reference this when discussing with my CPA. You mentioned that even if both activities are non-passive, the grouping rules still matter. Could you elaborate on what would make these activities NOT qualify for grouping? For instance, if the LLCs and personal rental properties are all in the same city, would geographical location support grouping them together? Also, when you say the CPA's response is a red flag - I'm definitely feeling that way too. She's made several other questionable decisions this year that have me concerned. Do you have any recommendations for finding a CPA who specializes specifically in real estate taxation? I feel like I need someone who deals with these complex scenarios regularly rather than a generalist.

0 coins

Don't forget you can offset those winnings with losses, but only if you have proof! I learned this the hard way. Keep all your ATM receipts at casinos, player's card statements, even hotel bills that show you were there. If you're audited without proof, you're screwed.

0 coins

So for my situation, I probably lost about $400 throughout the year before hitting this $1200 win. I don't have receipts for the losses though since I just used cash. Does that mean I'm stuck paying taxes on the full $1200?

0 coins

Nia Thompson

•

Everyone here is giving tax advice but no one mentioned the most important thing - if you won exactly $1200 they probably didn't withhold any federal taxes! The casino is required to give you a W-2G but withholding is only mandatory on slots if you win over $5,000. Make sure you set aside money for taxes so you're not surprised at tax time!

0 coins

Using FEIE instead of FTC for US citizens abroad with passive income - Why it's better for your tax situation

I've been living in Germany for the past 5 years and have discovered something interesting about my US tax situation that contradicts what most expat tax advisors recommend. I earn about €95,000 annually from my job here, plus I have around €1,500 in dividends from US investments. I want to keep contributing to my Roth IRA while minimizing my overall tax burden. Most expats are told to use the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) if they live in a high-tax country, but I think using a partial Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (FEIE) might actually be better in my specific situation. Let me walk through why with a simplified example. With the FTC, you multiply your US tax liability by this fraction: Foreign Income/(Foreign Income + US Income). If I make $150,000 total with $130,000 being foreign earned income and $20,000 being US dividend income, let's see how it works out. Assuming the first $100,000 is taxed at 10% and the next $50,000 at 15%, my US tax calculation with FTC would be: ($100,000 Ɨ 0.10) + ($50,000 Ɨ 0.15) Ɨ (130,000/150,000) = $15,170 My foreign tax might be something like 15% on the first $100,000 and 20% on the remaining amount, so that's $25,000 in foreign taxes. My total tax burden would be $40,170. But what if I use partial FEIE instead? I could exclude $110,000 of my foreign income (not the full $130,000), leaving me with $40,000 of taxable income ($20,000 foreign + $20,000 US). This would keep my $20,000 as earned income so I can contribute to my Roth IRA. My US tax would be much lower, around $4,000 if it's in the 10% bracket. Total tax burden: $25,000 (foreign) + $4,000 (US) = $29,000. That's over $11,000 in savings AND I can still contribute to my Roth IRA! The key insight: If your foreign earned income significantly exceeds your US passive income, partially applying the FEIE to exclude (Foreign Income - US Income) can be more advantageous than using the FTC.

One thing nobody's mentioned is how this affects your ability to claim the Child Tax Credit if you have kids. If you use the FEIE, you can't claim the refundable portion of the CTC on the excluded income. So if you have children, you might actually be better off with the FTC in some cases. For example, I live in France with 2 kids and about €70,000 in income, plus some US dividends. When I ran the numbers, the additional Child Tax Credit I could claim using FTC outweighed the tax savings from the partial FEIE strategy. Has anyone else with children done detailed calculations on this? Would be interested to see if this holds true across different income levels and number of dependents.

0 coins

Great point about the Child Tax Credit! I have 3 kids and live in Japan, and this is exactly why I use the FTC instead of FEIE. With the increased CTC amount ($2,000 per qualifying child with up to $1,500 refundable), it makes a huge difference. I think the break-even point depends on your income level, foreign tax rate, and number of children. In my experience, if you have 2+ kids and are in the lower income brackets (under $100k combined), the FTC often works out better because of the refundable credits. Has anyone found a good calculator that factors in all these variables? Most tax software doesn't seem to handle this comparison very well.

0 coins

Avery Davis

•

This is such a valuable discussion! I'm a US citizen living in Australia and have been struggling with this exact decision. Reading through everyone's experiences, I'm realizing I need to factor in more variables than I initially thought. @Emily Nguyen-Smith and @James Johnson - your point about the Child Tax Credit is huge. I have one child and was leaning toward the partial FEIE strategy, but now I'm wondering if I should stick with FTC to preserve my ability to claim the full CTC. One question for the group: has anyone dealt with superannuation (retirement contributions) in Australia and how that interacts with these strategies? My employer contributes about AUD $8,000 annually to my super, and I'm not sure how that affects the foreign earned income calculation for FEIE purposes. Also wondering about the interaction with the Additional Child Tax Credit - if I use partial FEIE and keep some earned income for Roth IRA eligibility, does that preserved earned income count toward the ACTC calculation even though the rest is excluded? This thread has been incredibly helpful - it's clear there's no one-size-fits-all answer and the optimal strategy really depends on your specific situation including state taxes, number of dependents, and foreign tax rates.

0 coins

Welcome to the community @Avery Davis! Your situation with Australian superannuation is actually quite complex and I'm glad you brought it up. For superannuation contributions, the employer contributions (Superannuation Guarantee) are generally not considered part of your foreign earned income for FEIE purposes since they're not directly received by you in the tax year. However, any salary sacrifice contributions you make would reduce your foreign earned income dollar-for-dollar, which could affect your FEIE calculation. Regarding the Additional Child Tax Credit with partial FEIE - yes, any earned income you preserve (don't exclude) would count toward the ACTC calculation. So if you exclude $80k but keep $20k as earned income for Roth IRA purposes, that $20k would be available for ACTC calculations. This is actually one of the strategic benefits of partial FEIE that isn't widely discussed. Given Australia's relatively high tax rates and your child, I'd strongly recommend running both scenarios (FTC vs partial FEIE) with your specific numbers. The interaction between Australian taxes, US credits, and superannuation can create some surprising results. You might want to consider using one of the tax analysis tools mentioned earlier in this thread to model both approaches comprehensively.

0 coins

Paolo Ricci

•

Lots of other countries already do what you're suggesting! In the UK they have a system called PAYE (Pay As You Earn) where taxes are automatically calculated and withheld for most employees. Sweden, Denmark, and Spain all send pre-filled tax returns to citizens - you just verify the information and submit. The US system is deliberately kept complex and manual. The technology for automated taxes has existed for decades.

0 coins

Amina Toure

•

Can confirm. I lived in Norway for 3 years and their tax system is amazing. You get a pre-filled tax form with all your info already there, just review it for accuracy, make any needed adjustments, and submit. Took me about 10 minutes each year. Coming back to the US was a shock - spent hours gathering forms and figuring everything out again.

0 coins

This is exactly why I've been pushing for return-free filing for years! As a tax professional, I see how unnecessarily complicated we've made something that could be simple for most Americans. The IRS already has the capability to pre-populate returns - they actually tested a pilot program called "Ready Return" in California back in 2006 that worked great. Participants loved it and it had a 99% accuracy rate. But it was killed due to industry pressure. For about 70% of taxpayers who take the standard deduction and have straightforward income, the math is already done. The IRS knows your wages, interest, and most other income sources. They could easily send you a pre-filled return to review and approve, just like other countries do. The real barrier isn't technical - it's political. We need to demand that our representatives prioritize taxpayer convenience over corporate profits from the tax prep industry.

0 coins

NebulaNinja

•

This is so frustrating to learn about! I had no idea there was actually a successful pilot program that got shut down. It really drives home that this isn't about whether the technology works - it's about protecting business interests over making life easier for regular people. The fact that 70% of taxpayers could benefit from automated filing but we're stuck with the current system because of lobbying is infuriating. How do we actually push for change on this? Are there any current efforts in Congress to bring back return-free filing, or organizations working on this issue that regular citizens can support?

0 coins

Prev1...32103211321232133214...5644Next