


Ask the community...
From what I've seen in this community over the past few years, amended returns are consistently the slowest category of tax filings to process. Back in 2021, I waited 11 months for an amended return to process. In 2022, it took 6 months. Last year was better at about 4 months. This year seems to be running at about 3-4 months based on what others are posting. So you're still within the expected timeframe. The community wisdom is: don't count on amended return money until you actually see it in your account. I've seen too many people get into financial binds planning around refund money that was significantly delayed.
I appreciate all this insight about timing. I think I'm understanding correctly that amendments for simple corrections like a forgotten 401k contribution might process faster than amendments that change filing status or add multiple forms, right? That gives me a bit more hope for my situation.
FWIW I just checked my transcript again (amended in Feb for missed 1099) and finally got the 846 code today! Took exactly 12 wks from when I filed the 1040-X. Def longer than reg returns but not as bad as I feared. Hang in there OP!
I'm in almost the exact same boat! Filed my original return on January 28th, then had to amend on February 15th because I completely spaced on my HSA contributions (facepalm). It's now been about 8 weeks and I'm seeing the same thing - amendment shows up on my transcript but no refund code yet. What's really helpful reading through everyone's responses here is understanding that 16-20 weeks is actually normal. I was getting worried at the 6-week mark thinking something was wrong. The fact that @Donna Cline just got her 846 code at exactly 12 weeks gives me hope that we're both probably in the home stretch. Thanks for posting this - it's reassuring to know I'm not the only one dealing with the amendment waiting game this year! š¤
Another reason to file separately: if you suspect your spouse is doing something sketchy on their taxes! When you file jointly, you're both liable for the entire tax bill including penalties and interest. If you file separately, you're only responsible for your own taxes. My cousin found out her husband had been hiding income for years. She immediately started filing separately to protect herself. When the IRS eventually caught up with him, she wasn't on the hook for any of it. Not saying this applies to OP, but worth knowing that MFS can be a liability protection in some cases.
This is actually really important info. My friend's husband was claiming all kinds of questionable business deductions, and she had no idea until they got audited. She was equally liable because they filed jointly, even though she knew nothing about his business finances. Cost her thousands.
That's a good point I hadn't considered. Thankfully that doesn't apply to our situation - we're pretty transparent about our finances. But I can see how that would be a valid reason in certain circumstances. Seems like the consensus is that for our specific situation (no student loans, no sketchy tax stuff, standard mortgage and investments), filing jointly is probably still the best bet. I might run it both ways just to confirm.
For your income level and situation, you're probably right that joint filing will be better, but definitely worth running the numbers both ways to be sure. With $340k combined income and $55k in mortgage interest, you'll likely benefit from itemizing, and the full mortgage interest deduction on a joint return should outweigh most potential benefits of filing separately. One thing to consider though - if you're planning for kids soon, definitely factor in how the child tax credit phases out. For 2025, it starts phasing out at $400k AGI for joint filers but only $200k for separate filers. So if your income grows or you have variable income from bonuses/investments, separate filing could potentially preserve some of that credit down the road. Also, don't forget about the state tax implications. Some states like California have different standard deductions or tax brackets for separate vs. joint filers that could swing the calculation. Your state's treatment of things like mortgage interest and retirement contributions might differ too. Given the complexity of your situation, it might be worth finding a CPA who will actually analyze both scenarios for you rather than just defaulting to joint. The potential tax savings could easily pay for the additional consultation fee.
This is really helpful advice, especially about the child tax credit phase-out differences! I hadn't thought about how that could change our situation once we have kids. The $200k threshold for separate filers vs $400k for joint is a huge difference. You're absolutely right about finding a CPA who will actually run both scenarios. Our current tax preparer clearly just defaults to joint without any analysis. Do you have any suggestions for finding someone who specializes in these kinds of comparative analyses? I'd rather pay a bit more upfront to make sure we're optimizing our tax strategy, especially with our income level. Also, we're in Texas so no state income tax to worry about, but I imagine the federal calculations alone could still swing either way depending on all these factors we're discussing.
Quick tip - be careful about state taxes too! The federal kiddie tax rules are one thing, but some states handle taxation of minor's investment income differently. I found this out the hard way last year when I handled everything correctly for federal but completely missed the state-specific forms.
This is such a helpful thread! I'm dealing with a similar situation with my 16-year-old's custodial account. One thing I learned from my CPA is that you can also consider using I Bonds (Series I Savings Bonds) for part of your kids' investments. The interest on I Bonds isn't taxed until you cash them out, which means you can potentially defer all the tax consequences until after they turn 24 and are no longer subject to kiddie tax rules. The downside is that I Bonds are limited to $10,000 per person per year and have lower potential returns than stocks, but for the portion of their money that you want to be more conservative with anyway, it's a nice way to avoid the annual kiddie tax hassle entirely. Just another option to consider alongside the growth stock strategy that Amara mentioned!
Just to add a data point here - I had this exact situation last year. LLC with S-corp election, filed 1120-S about 75 days late. I can confirm 100% that the IRC-6699 S-corporation penalties applied, not the LLC penalties. I tried to argue with the IRS that since my business is "technically" an LLC, the LLC penalty structure should apply (which would have been less in my case). They shut that down immediately. Once you elect S-corp taxation, you're treated as an S-corp for ALL tax purposes, including penalties. The good news is I was able to get a partial abatement based on reasonable cause (I had documentation showing my accountant had a family emergency). They reduced my penalty by about 40%.
How exactly did you request the abatement? Did you call or send a letter? I'm in a similar situation and wondering the most effective approach.
I sent a formal letter requesting abatement after I received the penalty notice. I included a detailed explanation of the circumstances, a signed statement from my accountant about the family emergency, and documentation showing that we had otherwise been compliant with all tax filings in previous years. The key was being very specific about why the late filing was due to circumstances beyond my control, not just carelessness. I also made sure to point out that we had no history of late filings. I think showing a pattern of past compliance really helps with these requests.
One thing nobody has mentioned yet - there's a difference between late FILING penalties (Form 1120-S) and late PAYMENT penalties. If you've been making your estimated tax payments as shareholders, you might only be dealing with the late filing penalty. The IRC-6699 penalty ($220 per shareholder per month) applies to late FILING of the 1120-S. But if you also have unpaid taxes at the shareholder level (on your 1040s), that's a separate penalty structure. Just something to keep in mind when calculating what you might owe.
That's a really good point. So if I've been paying my quarterly estimated taxes properly as the owner but just filed the 1120-S late, would I still owe the 5% of unpaid taxes penalty, or just the $220 per month penalty?
If you've been paying your quarterly estimated taxes properly at the individual level, you should only face the IRC-6699 late filing penalty ($220 per shareholder per month), not the failure-to-pay penalty. The 5% monthly penalty you're thinking of applies when you have actual unpaid tax liability, but since S-corp income passes through to your personal return and you've been making estimated payments, there shouldn't be unpaid corporate-level taxes. The 1120-S is primarily an informational return that reports the pass-through items to shareholders. As long as you and your fellow shareholders have been current on your individual tax obligations, the late filing penalty should be your only concern here.
Aisha Mahmood
Does anyone know if the Build America, Buy America Act influences whether research is considered domestic? We manufacture in the US but use some imported components in our R&D prototypes.
0 coins
Aisha Mahmood
ā¢That's a relief! We were worried we'd have to track the origin of every component. So just to be clear, if we're conducting the actual research activities in our US facility, we use the 5-year schedule regardless of component sourcing?
0 coins
Ethan Moore
ā¢Exactly right. The physical location where the research activities take place determines the amortization period, not the origin of the materials or components used. Since your actual R&D work is happening in your US facility, those expenses fall under the 5-year schedule. The sourcing of components doesn't change this classification.
0 coins
Elijah O'Reilly
I'm dealing with a similar Section 174 situation but have an additional wrinkle - we're a software company that does both internal R&D for our own products and contract R&D work for clients. Does anyone know if the Section 174 amortization rules apply differently to contract R&D work versus internal R&D? Our accountant thinks the contract work might be treated as regular business expenses rather than Section 174 R&D expenses since we're being paid by clients for that work. But I'm not sure if that's correct, especially since the actual research activities are the same whether we're doing them for ourselves or for clients. Has anyone encountered this distinction between internal versus contract R&D work under Section 174?
0 coins