


Ask the community...
Former restaurant manager here. This happens way too often because payroll systems for restaurants are notoriously bad at handling tip pools correctly. Here's what should happen: 1) Server reports total tips received 2) Server reports tip outs to support staff 3) Server is only taxed on tips retained 4) Support staff report and pay taxes on their share Most POS systems track this, but many payroll processors don't implement it correctly. If your manager won't fix it, document everything and talk to the owner. This is actually costing them money too since they pay employer payroll taxes on inflated wages.
Thank you for explaining this! The owner is coming in next week and I'm definitely going to bring this up. Should I bring anything specific to show him, or just explain the situation?
Bring a copy of your most recent pay stub that shows the discrepancy. If you can, calculate the approximate difference between what you actually received in tips versus what was reported as your income. Having specific numbers will make your case stronger. Also mention that correcting this benefits the restaurant too since they're currently overpaying employer-side payroll taxes (around 7.65% of the inflated amounts). Most owners respond better when they realize they're losing money. Good luck with the conversation!
This happened at every restaurant I've worked at. The worst part is when tax time comes and the IRS thinks you made WAY more than you actually did! Has anyone successfully gotten this fixed retroactively? Like for previous tax years?
Yes! You can file a Form 843 "Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement" along with an amended return (Form 1040-X) for up to 3 previous tax years. You'll need documentation though - any records of your actual tip distribution will help. I did this for 2022 and 2023 and got back almost $1,400 in total.
This is kinda unrelated but make sure you have your first RMD caluculation right. A lot of people mess this up because the rules changed recently with the SECURE Act. For 2024 RMDs, you use your account value as of December 31, 2023 and divide by the life expectancy factor from the IRS tables. If your birthday is in the first half of the year you use different tables than if its in the second half (I think). Easy to mess up.
Thanks for bringing this up. I actually have been confused about which table to use. My birthday is in August, so I guess that would be the second half of the year? Do you know which specific IRS table I should be looking at for this calculation?
Since your birthday is in August (second half of the year), you would use the Uniform Lifetime Table for calculating your RMD. The IRS updated these tables in 2022 to reflect longer life expectancies, which actually gives you slightly smaller required distributions. Just take your IRA balance as of December 31, 2023, and divide by the factor that corresponds with your age in 2024. For example, if you turned 73 in 2024 (which is now the RMD starting age for many people), your factor would be 26.5, meaning you divide your balance by 26.5 to get your RMD amount.
Does anyone know if the same rules apply to 401ks? My company's plan administrator told me something different about the taxation year and now I'm confused.
The same basic rules apply to 401ks - distributions are taxed in the calendar year received. However, there's one important difference with 401ks: if you're still working at the company where you have the 401k, you might be able to delay RMDs from that specific 401k until you retire (doesn't apply to IRAs or old 401ks from previous employers). This is called the "still working exception.
I've seen this happen when students receive retroactive scholarships or when tuition credits get applied after the fact. The key boxes on 1098-T form to understand: Box 1: Payments received for qualified tuition/expenses Box 4: Adjustments made to PRIOR year scholarships Box 5: Total scholarships/grants processed Box 6: Adjustments made to PRIOR year qualified expenses The timing of when things post to the student's account vs calendar year can create weird situations. If your son got any retroactive adjustments or late scholarships that applied to previous terms, they might show up this way. Double check if he received any: - Year-end scholarships - Special graduation grants - Adjustments to previous semesters - Balance corrections from prior years
He did get a special completion grant in his final semester that wasn't expected. But it was only about $5k, nowhere near these massive amounts showing up. And nothing that would explain an extra $80k in box 5 when his actual grants were only about $22k total for the year. I'm definitely going to contact the university tomorrow. Just needed to make sure I wasn't missing something obvious about how these forms work before I start that process.
The completion grant could be part of it, but you're right that it doesn't explain the magnitude of these discrepancies. One other possibility is if there was some loan forgiveness or conversion of loans to grants. Some schools have programs where initial loans get converted to grants upon graduation or completion of certain requirements. These conversions get reported in a really confusing way on the 1098-T. Either way, it's definitely worth getting clarification from the university. Ask them for a full accounting of how they arrived at each box amount.
Make sure to file Form 8863 for the American Opportunity Credit if this is your son's 4th year of college! Many people miss this. Even with scholarships, you might qualify for up to $2,500 credit if you paid any qualified expenses out of pocket. Also, check if his scholarships were restricted (specifically designated for tuition) or unrestricted. Only unrestricted scholarships that exceed qualified educational expenses are taxable.
But wouldn't the American Opportunity Credit be unavailable if the student already claimed it for 4 years? I thought that was the maximum lifetime limit?
Another option to consider is asking your employer for a salary increase instead of direct reimbursement. I did this successfully by creating a detailed presentation showing: 1) Market rates for our position with these skills 2) How these skills would directly benefit our department 3) Specific projects where the training/software would make immediate impact My director couldn't approve the training costs directly due to budget rules, but was able to process a 5% "skill adjustment" to my base salary. This actually worked out better since it's permanent rather than one-time reimbursement. Might be worth trying if traditional reimbursement isn't available in your department.
That's a really interesting approach I hadn't considered! Did you have to present this to just your direct supervisor or did you have to go higher up the chain? And approximately how long did the process take from proposal to actually seeing the increase?
I started with my direct supervisor to get their support, but the actual presentation was to both my supervisor and the department director since salary adjustments required director approval in our county structure. The entire process took about 7 weeks from my initial proposal to seeing the increase in my paycheck. The longest part was waiting for the HR committee to review the justification, which took about 3 weeks. The key was framing it as a "market adjustment" based on added skills rather than a traditional raise, which allowed them to use a different budget category than the frozen raise pool.
Has anyone tried negotiating for comp time instead of direct payment for training? My department also has zero budget for training, but my supervisor approved me taking a 2-day software course during work hours and counting it as regular work time. Technically, I still paid for the course myself, but not having to use PTO was worth about $350 in equivalent salary. Might be a partial solution if your manager has time approval flexibility even without budget authority.
This is actually a great workaround! My agency does something similar with a "professional development day" policy where we get 16 hours annually to use for approved courses/conferences. You still pay the registration fees, but at least you're on the clock. Worth asking if your county has any similar policies.
Sofia Torres
Just a tip from someone who went through this exact situation with the Recovery Rebate Credit and CP13 notice - make sure you keep copies of EVERYTHING you send to the IRS and send it via certified mail so you have proof of delivery. The IRS is notorious for "losing" correspondence, especially with these stimulus payment disputes. Also, when you write your response letter, put your notice number, tax ID, and tax year in the subject line AND at the top of every page. Make it super obvious what your letter is about. And be really clear and direct about why you're eligible for the Recovery Rebate Credit despite being claimed as a dependent on someone's 2019 return.
0 coins
Dmitry Sokolov
ā¢Would it be better to fax the response instead of mailing it? I've heard the IRS processing centers have huge backlogs of mail but faxes get entered into their system faster.
0 coins
Sofia Torres
ā¢In my experience, faxing can be faster but only if you have confirmation the fax went through successfully. The IRS fax lines are often busy or don't connect properly. I'd recommend doing both if possible - send via certified mail for your records and also try faxing. The key thing regardless of method is making your documents super clear and organized. Put your notice number, SSN (last 4 digits only for security), and tax year on every single page. The IRS processes millions of pieces of correspondence and making yours easy to identify with the right case helps tremendously.
0 coins
Ava Martinez
Just a heads up that if you were claimed as a dependent on ANYONE'S 2019 return, you were technically ineligible for the first two stimulus payments as an individual. The law was written that way, even if the person who claimed you didn't receive a payment for you either. This is a really common misunderstanding about the Recovery Rebate Credit. Even if you weren't properly claimed as a dependent (like in your case where you probably didn't qualify as one), the fact that someone DID claim you is what matters to the IRS automated systems.
0 coins
Miguel Ramos
ā¢That doesn't sound right. If someone incorrectly claimed you as a dependent when you weren't actually qualified to be one, you should still be eligible for your own stimulus payment. The IRS even has procedures for resolving these exact situations.
0 coins