Hi Cynteria! Tax code 291 typically refers to "Additional Medicare Tax" on your tax documents. This code by itself doesn't indicate that you're receiving money - it's usually related to additional Medicare tax that may have been withheld from your wages if you earned over certain thresholds ($200,000 for single filers, $250,000 for married filing jointly). To better help you understand what this means for your specific situation, could you provide a bit more context? Are you seeing this code on your W-2, tax return, or another document? This will help clarify whether it affects your refund or tax liability.

Don't forget that depending on the value of the farmland, Nebraska might also have had estate taxes that would have been due upon your uncle's death. This is separate from the income/capital gains taxes you'll pay when selling. Did you have to file an estate tax return?

Are you planning to reinvest in other real estate? You might want to look into a 1031 exchange to defer the taxes if you're going to buy different investment property with the proceeds.

Has anyone here actually filed separately and found it beneficial? My accountant keeps insisting joint is always better but I'm not convinced.

For your income levels ($160K and $155K), filing jointly is most likely going to be your best bet. With similar incomes, you won't hit the marriage penalty that affects couples where one spouse earns significantly more than the other. The math usually works out like this: joint filing gives you a higher standard deduction ($27,700 for 2023 vs $13,850 each filing separately), and you'll benefit from the more favorable tax brackets. Without kids or significant itemized deductions, you're looking at probably $2,000-4,000 in tax savings by filing jointly. The main exceptions where separate might be better: - If either of you has federal student loans on income-driven repayment (could lower monthly payments) - Significant medical expenses over 7.5% of your individual income - One spouse has tax debt/issues you don't want to be liable for Since you just got married in September, this is also a good time to update your W-4s with your employers to adjust withholding for next year based on your new filing status. Congrats on the marriage, and welcome to the world of joint tax planning!

This exact same thing happened to me last year! Turns out the IRS had an old version of my ZIP code in their system from when I moved apartments within the same ZIP but the +4 extension changed. Try using your ZIP+4 from your most recent tax return if you have it, or call your local post office to get the exact ZIP+4 for your current address. Sometimes that extra specificity is what unlocks the system.

Had this exact issue last year and it drove me absolutely crazy! Turns out my middle initial was the problem - I was entering my full middle name but the IRS only had my middle initial on file from my original return. Try variations of how your name appears: with/without middle initial, abbreviated vs full middle name, etc. Also double-check if you're using the ZIP code from when you originally filed vs your current one. The IRS system is ridiculously picky about these details but once I figured out the right combo it worked instantly.

This is a really common source of confusion, and I think you're caught between two different schools of thought rather than right vs. wrong advice. Your original arrangement is legitimate, but let me add some clarity on what might be driving your new accountant's concerns. The self-rental arrangement you described is perfectly legal when done properly. You're right that if you rented from a third party, they wouldn't pay self-employment tax on that rental income either. The key requirements are: 1) formal written lease agreement, 2) fair market rent (get comparable property analysis), 3) consistent rent payments, and 4) proper separate accounting. However, your new accountant might be concerned about audit risk. The IRS does scrutinize related-party transactions more closely, especially with single-member LLCs. They want to ensure it's a legitimate business arrangement, not just tax manipulation. My suggestion: Ask your new accountant to be specific about their concerns. Are they worried about documentation gaps, audit risk, or do they fundamentally disagree with self-rental arrangements? If it's just about being conservative, you can decide whether the tax benefits outweigh the perceived risk. If they've identified actual compliance issues, those need to be addressed. Also consider getting a third opinion from a tax attorney or CPA who specializes in small business structures to break the tie between your two accountants.

I've been following this discussion and wanted to add something that might help clarify the situation. The confusion between your two accountants likely stems from different risk tolerance levels rather than one being definitively right or wrong. Your self-rental arrangement is indeed legitimate - it's called a "related party lease" and is specifically addressed in IRS regulations. The rental income goes on Schedule E (not subject to SE tax), while your LLC gets a business deduction for rent expense. This is standard practice for many small business owners. However, there are some nuances that might explain your new accountant's concerns: 1. **Documentation requirements are strict** - You need a formal lease with market-rate rent, consistent payments, and separate record-keeping 2. **Single-member LLC considerations** - If your LLC is disregarded for tax purposes, the IRS may scrutinize whether this creates any real economic substance 3. **Passive activity rules** - Depending on your level of participation, there could be limitations on deducting rental losses The key question to ask your new accountant: Are they concerned about the arrangement itself, or about how it's been implemented and documented? If it's the latter, those issues can usually be fixed. If they philosophically oppose self-rental arrangements, you might want that third opinion others have suggested. Your original accountant's advice wasn't wrong - they were likely optimizing for tax efficiency while staying within legal bounds.