Thanks everyone for all the helpful responses! This has been incredibly informative. I just checked my pay stubs from last year and confirmed that my STD premiums were being deducted pre-tax through our cafeteria plan, which means my benefits will indeed be taxable. I also went back and looked at my STD payment statements more carefully (thanks for that tip!) and found that they did withhold about 20% for federal taxes, so at least I won't get completely blindsided come tax time. One more question though - since the STD payments had taxes withheld, will I receive a W-2 from the insurance company, or will this just be included in my regular W-2 from my employer? I want to make sure I'm not missing any tax documents when I file.

Just wanted to add one more important point that I learned the hard way - if you're receiving STD benefits and they're taxable, you might want to consider making quarterly estimated tax payments if not enough is being withheld. I received STD benefits a few years ago that had minimal withholding, and even though I knew they were taxable, I didn't realize how much it would bump me into a higher tax bracket. Ended up owing a significant amount plus underpayment penalties when I filed. If your STD payments are substantial and you're worried about owing taxes, you can either ask the insurance company to withhold more (if they allow it) or make estimated payments directly to the IRS. Form 1040ES has the vouchers and instructions for quarterly payments. Just something to consider so you don't get hit with surprise penalties on top of the tax bill!

Another avenue worth exploring is checking with local title insurance companies in the area where the properties are located. Even if you don't know which specific company handled your father's transactions, many title companies maintain searchable databases of past transactions and can look up properties by address or owner name going back decades. I also want to mention that if you're completely unable to establish the original purchase price through any of these methods, the IRS does allow you to use "reconstructed records" as long as you can demonstrate that you made a good faith effort to locate the actual records. This might involve getting appraisals that estimate what the property would have been worth at the time of purchase, using historical market data and comparable sales. Keep detailed documentation of every attempt you make to find the original records - phone calls, letters, visits to offices, etc. This paper trail will be crucial if the IRS ever questions your cost basis determination. The fact that your father's stroke affected his memory and that he kept poor records creates a legitimate hardship situation that the IRS typically accommodates when reasonable efforts have been made to reconstruct the information.

I went through this exact situation with my father-in-law's properties after he developed dementia. One resource that hasn't been mentioned yet is checking with the local building department or planning office. If your father made any significant improvements to these rental properties over the years (additions, major renovations, etc.), there should be building permits on file that show the dates and estimated costs of the work. These improvements would increase your cost basis, and building departments typically keep permit records indefinitely. Even if you can't find the original purchase price, having documentation of substantial improvements can significantly reduce your capital gains tax liability. Also, if your father was meticulous about anything, check for old homeowner's or rental property insurance policies in his files. Insurance companies require periodic updates of coverage amounts, so even old policy renewal notices might give you clues about property values at different points in time. Sometimes people keep these documents in safety deposit boxes or with important papers even when they don't keep other financial records. Don't give up - I know it feels overwhelming, but between all these suggestions, you'll likely find enough information to establish a reasonable basis that will satisfy the IRS requirements.

As a newcomer to this community, I've been reading through this entire thread and I'm absolutely shocked by how common this OASDI withholding error seems to be! I had no idea that so many companies were making the same mistake of withholding both employee AND employer portions of Social Security tax. The math breakdown everyone has provided makes this crystal clear - at your $82k salary, your OASDI should only be about $196 per biweekly check (6.2% of gross wages), not the $483 they're taking. That's a massive difference that clearly indicates they're incorrectly withholding the full 12.4% rate instead of just your employee portion. What really strikes me is the pattern of payroll departments claiming they "have no control" over their own systems. After reading all these experiences, it's obvious this is just a standard deflection tactic to avoid taking responsibility for their compliance violations. Based on everyone's success stories here, I'd definitely recommend going back to payroll with specific calculations showing the error, referencing IRS Publication 15 (Circular E) which clearly states the 6.2% employee rate, and demanding immediate correction plus refund of all excess withholding. Don't let them intimidate you into thinking this is your problem to solve - this is basic payroll compliance that they're failing at. This thread has been incredibly educational for someone like me who's new to understanding payroll taxes. Thanks to everyone who shared their knowledge and experiences - it's exactly this kind of community support that helps people stand up for their rights against bureaucratic incompetence!

As a newcomer to this community, I've been reading through this entire discussion with great concern and fascination. The sheer number of people experiencing this exact same OASDI withholding error is truly alarming - it suggests this is a widespread systemic issue rather than isolated incidents. What's most striking to me is how the math is so consistent across everyone's situations. At your $82k salary with biweekly pay, your OASDI should absolutely be around $196 per check (6.2% of gross wages), not the $483 they're withholding. That's literally 2.5 times what it should be, which clearly indicates they're incorrectly taking both the employee AND employer portions from your paycheck. The pattern of payroll departments claiming they "have no control" is particularly infuriating given that it's their own system causing the problem. As the payroll professional who commented here confirmed, this is complete nonsense - they absolutely have control over their withholding configurations and it's their legal obligation to get it right. Based on all the success stories shared in this thread, I'd strongly recommend taking a firm, documented approach: calculate your exact overpayments from each affected pay period, print out IRS Publication 15 (Circular E) which clearly states the 6.2% employee rate, and present written demands for immediate correction and full refund. Don't let them dismiss you - you have federal regulations backing your position. This community discussion has been incredibly valuable for understanding employee rights around payroll compliance. Thank you to everyone who shared their experiences and solutions - your collective knowledge is helping fellow workers fight back against these violations with confidence!

I'm dealing with this exact same frustrating situation and it's honestly mind-blowing how broken the amended return system has become. Filed mine in late February to add some missing scholarship income that came in after I'd already filed, and here we are in July - over 4 months later - with nothing but that completely unhelpful "received" status. What really gets me is the total lack of realistic expectations. They say 16 weeks but based on everyone's experiences here, 6-8 months seems to be the actual reality. If they just told us upfront "expect 8+ months," at least we could plan accordingly instead of checking that useless tracking tool every week hoping for updates that never come. I've tried calling the amended return hotline probably 10+ times and either get disconnected after waiting forever or can't even get into the queue. It's like the system is designed to make us give up and just accept the endless delay. Reading through all these stories, I'm definitely going to try the congressional office route next week. It's absolutely ridiculous that we need our elected representatives to intervene just to get basic customer service from the IRS, but if that's the only way to get actual answers about our own returns, then so be it. Thanks everyone for sharing your experiences and strategies - at least now I know there might be a path forward!

I'm going through the exact same nightmare and honestly, reading through everyone's experiences here has been both reassuring and horrifying. Filed my amended return in early March to correct some missing 1099-K income from freelance work, and I'm now at the 4+ month mark with absolutely nothing beyond that completely useless "received" status. What's particularly maddening is that I actually owe MORE tax after the correction (the freelance income pushed me into a higher bracket), so it's not like I'm trying to get money from them - I literally want to pay them what I rightfully owe! Yet somehow adding one form requires this endless "manual review" while regular returns get processed in weeks. The complete lack of communication and realistic timelines is what drives me crazy. Their 16-week estimate is clearly fiction when everyone here is waiting 6-8 months minimum. I've called that amended return hotline at least 8 times and never once reached a human - either disconnected after hours of hold music or can't even get in the queue. Based on all the success stories shared here, I'm definitely contacting my congressional office this week. It's absolutely insane that we need political intervention just to get basic information about our own tax returns, but if that's the only way to break through this bureaucratic wall, I'm willing to try anything. Thanks everyone for sharing your strategies and experiences - at least we can suffer through this broken system together!

I've been through this exact same situation with GLD and SLV! The confusion is totally understandable because these ETFs are structured so differently from regular funds. One thing that really helped me was getting a clear understanding of what's actually happening with those monthly 1099-Bs. The trust is literally selling tiny amounts of the physical gold/silver to pay for storage, insurance, and management fees. So technically, you are having micro-sales throughout the year, even though you never initiated any transactions. Your CPA's approach of treating each expense as a micro-sale is technically the most accurate method. While the basis adjustment approach you've been using achieves similar results over time, the IRS could potentially argue that these small dispositions should be reported as they occur. Since you mentioned having unrealized losses and your extension deadline is coming up, I'd recommend going with your CPA's method for this year. The good news is that with losses, the tax impact should be minimal regardless of which method you use. Plus, having a professional handle all those tiny transactions will save you a lot of headache come next tax season. Just make sure your CPA understands that any gains when you eventually sell will be subject to the 28% collectibles tax rate, not the regular capital gains rates.

I went through this exact same confusion last year! After years of doing my own taxes with GLD and SLV, switching to a CPA definitely created some friction around the reporting method. What helped me understand the difference was realizing that both approaches are trying to account for the same economic reality - the trust is continuously selling tiny amounts of metal to cover expenses, which reduces your proportional ownership. The question is just timing: do you report these as they happen (micro-sales) or when you eventually sell your shares (basis adjustments)? From a compliance standpoint, your CPA's micro-sale approach is more technically correct since it matches the timing of when the actual dispositions occur. The IRS guidance on grantor trusts suggests this is the preferred method, especially for larger holdings. One practical tip: if you decide to stick with the micro-sale method going forward, ask your CPA about using tax software that can handle the volume of small transactions automatically. Manually entering dozens of tiny sales each year gets old fast, and automation reduces errors. Since you mentioned having unrealized losses and a tight deadline, I'd recommend going with your CPA's approach this year. The tax impact should be minimal given your losses, and it sets you up with the more defensible method for future years.