


Ask the community...
Just to add another perspective on the original question - I'm a bookkeeper and have helped several clients with this exact annuity issue. There's something called an "exclusion ratio" that determines how much of each payment is taxable vs. return of principal. If you know when the annuity was purchased and the total amount invested, you can calculate this yourself. The company that issued the 1099-R probably defaulted to showing the full amount as taxable because they don't have complete records of the original investment, especially if the annuity was purchased many years ago or transferred between companies.
Thank you for mentioning the exclusion ratio! I think that's what I need to calculate. Do you happen to know which specific form or worksheet I should be using? My MIL's annuity was purchased about 12 years ago, and I do have the original paperwork showing the purchase amount.
You'll want to use the Simplified Method Worksheet, which you can find in the instructions for Form 1040. If her annuity started payments when she was between 65-69 years old, you would divide her total investment by 260 to get the amount of each payment that's considered return of principal. For example, if she invested $130,000 in the annuity, then $130,000 รท 260 = $500 of each payment would be tax-free return of principal. If she receives $800 monthly, then only $300 would be taxable as earnings. Keep track of this calculation each year because once she's recovered her full investment amount, all future payments become fully taxable.
Has anyone used TurboTax to report this kind of situation? I have a similar issue with my own annuity and wondering if the software handles it correctly or if I need to override something.
I used TurboTax last year for my mom's taxes with an annuity. It asks you for the 1099-R information, then it has a section where you can enter the exclusion amount or indicate that it was purchased with after-tax dollars. It then walks you through the simplified method calculation. Worked fine for us.
One aspect nobody's mentioned yet - make sure you're calculating the actual tax impact correctly. If your taxable income is increasing by $5, the tax difference isn't $5 - it's $5 multiplied by your marginal tax rate. So if you were in the 22% bracket, we're talking about $1.10 in additional tax. I filed late 8606 forms for 3 years after messing up my backdoor Roth process, and included a simple cover letter that said: "I recently became aware of the requirement to file Form 8606 to track nondeductible contributions to my traditional IRA. I am submitting these forms now to properly establish basis. As these contributions were nondeductible, no tax advantage was gained by the oversight." No penalties were assessed. The IRS has much bigger issues to worry about than people who are voluntarily correcting their returns for minimal or zero tax impact.
Thanks for pointing out the actual tax difference! I was thinking about the $5 of income, not the actual tax amount which would be even smaller. That makes me feel better about the situation. Did you send your late 8606 forms with an amended return or just on their own with the cover letter? I'm debating both approaches and trying to figure out the easiest way to handle this without triggering unnecessary scrutiny.
I sent the late 8606 forms on their own with just the cover letter since they didn't actually change my tax liability for those years. The 8606 forms were just establishing basis for future use. In your case, since you do have a small change to your actual tax liability for 2019, I'd probably file an amended return for that specific year along with all the 8606 forms and a comprehensive cover letter explaining both issues. The reality is that the IRS isn't going to launch an audit over a dollar and change, but it's still technically the correct way to handle it. And having everything documented properly will save headaches down the road if you ever need to reference your IRA basis.
Is no one going to mention that there's a "First Time Abatement" policy that the IRS typically grants for penalties if you have a clean compliance history? I had a similar situation last year and just called and asked for first time penalty abatement for the late 8606 forms, and they granted it immediately. Didn't even need a long explanation letter.
First Time Abatement is for failure-to-file and failure-to-pay penalties on returns, not specifically for the $50 penalty for late 8606 forms. Those are two different types of penalties. Are you sure that's what you received?
One option nobody's mentioned yet is splitting the difference. You could adjust your withholding to reduce it somewhat, but not eliminate the refund entirely. That way you still get more in your paychecks now, but you're also building in a safety margin in case your tax calculations aren't perfect. I do this every year - aim for a modest refund of $1,000-2,000 as insurance against unexpected tax issues, while keeping my regular withholding reasonable. The perfect withholding would theoretically result in $0 owed and $0 refund, but that's nearly impossible to achieve with changing circumstances throughout the year.
How exactly do you calculate this "insurance amount"? I've tried to do this before but always end up way off, either getting much bigger refunds than I planned or owing a little.
I use what I call the "10% buffer rule." I calculate what my ideal withholding should be for zero refund/zero amount due, then I add 10% extra to that amount as my safety margin. For example, if my calculated correct withholding is $1,000 per month, I'll actually withhold $1,100 per month. This typically results in a refund of about $1,200 at year end, which I'm comfortable with. It's small enough that I'm not giving a huge interest-free loan to the government, but large enough to absorb unexpected tax changes or calculation errors.
Has anyone here actually applied an overpayment to the next year and then adjusted withholding to $0 for a quarter? My accountant warned me this could trigger an automated review because it looks unusual. Just wondering about real experiences.
I've done this for the past three years with no issues. Applied about $8K of my refund to the next year's taxes each time, then adjusted my withholding way down for Q1 and part of Q2. Never triggered any special review or audit flags. The IRS systems treat it as a perfectly normal transaction because it is - it's a built-in option on the tax forms for a reason.
Don't forget that if you're still holding the remaining 171 shares, you'll want to keep extremely detailed records of your cost basis for when you eventually sell! I learned this the hard way. My company did 3 acquisitions over 5 years, which meant our stock went through multiple conversions. When I finally sold shares last year, I had absolutely zero documentation from the original grants 8 years ago. Ended up having to piece everything together from old paystubs and emails. I'd recommend creating a spreadsheet right now with: - Grant date - Vest date - FMV on vest date - Number of shares - Any adjustments for stock splits/mergers Trust me, future you will be eternally grateful when you need this info 5+ years from now!
Is there a good template for tracking this? My company has done RSUs, ISOs, and ESPPs over the years and I'm already losing track of which shares came from where and when each lot vested.
I don't have a specific template, but I created one in Google Sheets that works well. The key columns I use are: Grant Type (RSU/ISO/ESPP), Grant Date, Vest Date, Shares Granted, Shares Vested, FMV at Grant, FMV at Vest, Shares Sold for Taxes, Net Shares Received, and Cost Basis per Share. I also add notes for any corporate actions like splits or mergers that affected share counts. This has saved me countless hours at tax time. The most important thing is to update it immediately when new shares vest, because trying to reconstruct this later is a nightmare.
Is anyone else's broker just completely useless with providing this info? My company uses E*Trade and their 1099-B just shows the proceeds from the shares sold for taxes but nothing about the actual RSU grant or vesting details. And their customer service people just read from scripts and don't understand RSU tax treatment at all.
Zachary Hughes
5 Have you checked if you entered your property tax information correctly in TurboTax but not in TaxAct? That would explain why TaxAct is showing a higher refund - it's not accounting for property tax payments that might reduce your refund. Also, did you double-check if both programs are properly accounting for state tax withholding from your W-2s? Sometimes the way you enter state withholding can cause big differences in refund calculations.
0 coins
Zachary Hughes
โข1 Thanks for the suggestions! I checked and you're right - I had entered our property tax information in TurboTax but completely missed it in TaxAct. When I added it to TaxAct, the refund amounts got much closer. But there's still about a $120 difference between them. Could this be because of how they handle state tax credits differently?
0 coins
Zachary Hughes
โข5 That $120 difference could definitely be due to how each program calculates state tax credits. Each state has different credits and deductions, and sometimes the tax software interprets eligibility requirements differently. Look for any state-specific credits that might be applied in one program but not the other. Common ones include education credits, child and dependent care credits, and energy efficiency credits. One program might be automatically applying a credit that the other one isn't. Go through the state tax section line by line in both programs and you'll likely find where that remaining $120 difference is coming from.
0 coins
Zachary Hughes
13 I'm a tax preparer and I see this ALL THE TIME. Usually it comes down to these factors: 1) Different assumptions about standard vs itemized deductions 2) Property tax entries not matching 3) State-specific credits being calculated differently 4) Different handling of retirement contributions 5) Health insurance premium tax credits
0 coins
Zachary Hughes
โข17 Do you think it's worth paying for the more expensive software if it gives you a smaller refund? Logically the more accurate one should be better, but it feels wrong to pay more for less money back!
0 coins