


Ask the community...
FYI - NJ announced they're taking longer this year due to increased fraud prevention measures. Their official statement says most refunds will take 4-6 weeks minimum, even for simple returns with no issues. They're manually reviewing more returns than in previous years.
Just wanted to add that I'm seeing the same thing with my NJ return filed around the same time as yours. The "no information available" status is really frustrating when you're waiting for your refund. I've been checking daily but trying to be patient since everyone here is saying 4-6 weeks is normal now. At least it's good to know we're not alone in this - seems like NJ is just really backed up this year with all the fraud prevention measures they mentioned.
I had this EXACT same issue with E*TRADE last year. Different plan numbers for traditional and Roth Solo 401k components. When I filed my taxes, it got flagged for review because it looked like I had two separate plans with different contribution limits. Took 3 months to sort out with the IRS. Had to provide all the plan docs showing it was actually supposed to be one plan. Get this fixed ASAP before tax time comes around - you don't want the headache I dealt with.
Thanks for sharing this! Did you end up getting any penalties from the IRS for having the wrong plan setup? Or was it just a lot of paperwork to fix it?
This is a really important issue that more solo business owners need to be aware of. I went through something similar with my Solo 401k setup at Schwab. The key thing to understand is that the IRS treats a Solo 401k as a single plan regardless of whether you have traditional and Roth components. What you've described - having different plan numbers and names - essentially creates the appearance of two separate plans in the eyes of the IRS. This can cause several problems: 1. Contribution limit confusion - you might accidentally exceed the annual limits if the system treats them as separate plans 2. Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) calculations get complicated when you reach that age 3. Form 5500 filing requirements become unclear if your assets grow The good news is this is fixable. Call E*TRADE's retirement plan department (not regular customer service) and explain that you need to consolidate your Solo 401k traditional and Roth components under a single plan number and name. They should be able to process a plan amendment to correct this. Don't wait on this - it's much easier to fix now than after you've made contributions and have multiple years of statements with inconsistent plan information.
Just to clarify something important - the date you see on WMR is when the IRS releases the funds, not necessarily when they'll hit your account. Think of it like the IRS putting your refund in the mail on that date (electronic mail, but still π). With H&R Block's fees being taken out, there's that extra step where they get the money first, take their cut, then send the rest to you. I learned this lesson the hard way last year when I'd already mentally spent my refund before it arrived! The good news is it's almost certainly coming, just on bank time not IRS time.
Same situation here! Filed with H&R Block on 2/1, got accepted immediately, and WMR shows 2/25 deposit date. Still checking my account obsessively but nothing yet. Reading through these comments is actually really helpful - I had no idea about the MetaBank middleman process. I thought the IRS just sent it straight to my bank account minus the fees. Now I understand why there's this extra delay. Definitely going to stop refreshing my banking app every 5 minutes since it sounds like this is totally normal. Thanks everyone for sharing your experiences!
Has anyone actually received interest on their delayed GA refund? They're supposed to pay interest after 90 days but my refund finally came and no interest was included.
I got interest! It was a separate deposit about a week after my refund came through. Check your account again in a few days.
I'm in the exact same boat! Filed my Georgia return in March and still showing "processing" on the DOR website. It's so frustrating seeing federal refunds come through quickly while state just sits there. I've tried calling the 877 number multiple times but either get a busy signal or sit on hold for hours before giving up. From reading all these comments, it sounds like Georgia really messed up their system this year with the new fraud detection. Some people are waiting 4-5 months which is absolutely ridiculous. I'm going to try some of the suggestions here - maybe the taxr.ai tool to see if there's an issue with my return I'm not aware of, or possibly reaching out to my state representative if it goes much longer. Has anyone who filed around the same time as me (March) actually gotten their refund yet? Just trying to gauge if I should expect to wait until August like some others mentioned.
I filed in March too and just got mine last week, so there's hope! It took about 4 months total. I was in the same situation - kept checking that useless "processing" status and getting nowhere with phone calls. What finally helped me was using taxr.ai like others mentioned. It showed me that my return had a small discrepancy with my employer's reported withholding that was causing the delay. Once I understood what was happening, I could address it directly instead of just waiting blindly. The tool really does help translate all the confusing tax stuff into plain English. Hang in there - it seems like they're finally working through the backlog!
Ingrid Larsson
Have you looked into treating this as a return of capital under Section 301(c)(2) rather than a dividend? If the C-Corp has sufficient E&P to cover the distribution, that's problematic, but if not, you might be able to treat at least part of it as a return of capital up to the shareholder's basis. Also, consider whether the franchise sale could qualify as a sale of a separate business segment under Section 302(e)(2), which would support partial liquidation treatment even without explicit documentation.
0 coins
Liam Murphy
β’We've considered the return of capital approach, but unfortunately the company has substantial E&P that would cover the distribution amount. I like your suggestion about Section 302(e)(2) though. The franchise locations operated as separate business segments with their own management and financial statements. Do you think we could argue this meets the "not essentially equivalent to a dividend" test under 302(b)(1) given the meaningful contraction of the business operations? The corporation went from two operating locations to one, which seems substantial.
0 coins
Ingrid Larsson
β’The separate business segment approach under 302(e)(2) would be your strongest argument. Since you had two distinct franchise locations and one was completely sold off, this represents a genuine contraction of the business rather than just a distribution of earnings. For the "not essentially equivalent to a dividend" test under 302(b)(1), you're in a tougher position since this is a sole shareholder situation. The test typically looks at whether there was a meaningful reduction in the shareholder's proportionate interest in the corporation, which doesn't happen with a 100% shareholder. However, courts have occasionally looked at other factors in sole shareholder cases, including business purpose and whether there was a genuine contraction. I'd recommend documenting the business reasons for the sale (separate from tax considerations) and showing how the operations contracted. Even without formal documentation at the time, you might be able to establish partial liquidation treatment based on the actual substance of what occurred.
0 coins
Jace Caspullo
This is a complex situation that requires careful analysis of multiple code sections. Given that the C-Corp already paid tax on the gain but the shareholder received the proceeds directly, you're essentially dealing with a constructive dividend unless you can successfully argue for different treatment. Your best path forward is likely the partial liquidation argument under Section 302(b)(4) combined with 302(e)(2). The key factors working in your favor are: 1) genuine contraction of business operations (50% reduction from two locations to one), 2) complete termination of one business segment, and 3) the distribution was directly attributable to the business contraction. The lack of formal documentation is problematic but not necessarily fatal. Rev. Rul. 75-223 and several Tax Court cases have recognized partial liquidations based on substance over form when there's clear evidence of business contraction. Document everything you can about the business reasons for the sale and consider preparing a detailed memorandum establishing the facts and legal basis for partial liquidation treatment. One additional consideration: make sure to calculate whether the shareholder has sufficient basis to absorb the distribution. If the basis exceeds the distribution amount, the entire amount could be treated as a return of capital under a successful partial liquidation argument. You might also want to consider filing a protective election or amended return with alternative treatments to preserve your options if the IRS challenges the characterization.
0 coins