This is so important! My brother thought he could just reclaim his property when a buyer defaulted on owner financing, but it turned into a legal nightmare because he didn't follow the proper foreclosure procedures in his state. The tax implications were also way more complicated because of it.

Exactly right. Each state has different laws regarding owner financing and foreclosure requirements. Some states treat these transactions like mortgages requiring judicial foreclosure, while others allow for simpler processes if you used a land contract or contract for deed. The tax implications directly tie to the legal process. If you don't properly document the default and reclamation according to your state's laws, you could have trouble justifying your tax treatment to the IRS. It's worth consulting with a real estate attorney who specializes in your state's foreclosure laws before finalizing your tax approach.

You should be able to add those legal fees to your basis in the property since they're directly related to defending/clearing title. They're not immediately deductible expenses but get factored into your basis, which will reduce any gain when you eventually sell the property again.

Do you know if we need to get the 1099-R corrected before we file, or can we just file with the explanation that it's incorrect? The tax filing deadline is coming up soon and I'm worried the credit union won't fix this in time.

You really want to get the corrected 1099-R before filing if at all possible. Filing with an explanation that contradicts the 1099-R information the IRS has on file often triggers correspondence audits or notices. If you're running close to the deadline, file an extension to give yourself more time to get this corrected. An extension gives you an additional six months to file (though not to pay, but in this case the correct tax should be much lower or zero). The credit union should be able to issue a corrected 1099-R within a few weeks if they acknowledge their mistake.

Actually, the 10% early withdrawal penalty doesn't apply to distributions to beneficiaries after death, even if the beneficiary is under 59.5. That's one of the exceptions listed in the tax code. But they would still owe regular income tax on the distribution if it's not corrected.

Do you set aside a separate bank account for this? I've tried to do quarterly payments but always end up spending the money I should be saving for taxes.

Yes, I have a separate savings account specifically for taxes! This was game-changing for me. Every time I get paid, I immediately transfer 30% to this account. I don't even think of that money as mine - it's already the government's money that I'm just holding temporarily. Some banks let you create sub-accounts with different names, which helps mentally. I named mine "NOT MY MONEY - TAXES" to remind myself not to touch it except for quarterly payments. Having it separate from your main checking account removes the temptation to spend it.

Wait really? Interest on tax payments can be deducted? That's amazing, I paid about $400 in interest because I was on a payment plan. Do you know which form this goes on?

This is so true! I used to go to one of those chain tax places and when I finally switched to a CPA, the difference was huge. Worth every penny, especially for self-employment stuff.

Have any of your clients using the pro-rata approach been audited yet? I'm worried that might be seen as too simplified if the actual spending pattern wasn't evenly distributed throughout the year.

None of our clients using this approach have been audited yet. You raise a valid concern though. If a client's business is seasonal or their meal expenses fluctuate significantly throughout the year, a pro-rata allocation wouldn't be appropriate. In those cases, we recommend either analyzing the actual receipts or using a reasonable allocation based on their business patterns (like quarterly sales figures or similar metrics that would correlate with business meal activity).

I haven't seen any serious legislation proposed to extend it. There was some industry lobbying from restaurant associations, but it doesn't seem to have gained traction. I'd proceed with the split approach rather than counting on a retroactive extension.