


Ask the community...
Something important that nobody has mentioned yet - even if the TCJA provisions expire and the mortgage interest deduction limit goes back to $1M, many people still won't benefit from it because the standard deduction is so much higher now. My wife and I have a $600k mortgage and we STILL take the standard deduction because our itemized deductions don't exceed $27,700 (2023 married filing jointly standard deduction). So before you get too excited about the potential SALT cap removal or higher mortgage interest limits, do the math to see if you'd actually itemize at all. For many people, it won't matter.
That's a good point, but isn't the higher standard deduction also part of TCJA and set to expire? So wouldn't the standard deduction also go back down in 2026, making itemizing more likely again?
You're absolutely right - I should have mentioned that. The increased standard deduction is indeed part of TCJA and scheduled to expire after 2025. Pre-TCJA, the standard deduction was much lower (around $12,700 for married filing jointly in 2017, adjusted for inflation). If no legislation is passed, the standard deduction would indeed drop significantly in 2026, which would make itemizing deductions beneficial for many more taxpayers. So the combination of lower standard deduction, unlimited SALT deductions, and higher mortgage interest cap could create a substantial change in tax strategy for homeowners in high-tax states.
Does anyone know if the $750k mortgage interest limit is per person or per return? My spouse and I are buying a $1.4M house and wondering if we each get $750k of deductible mortgage or if it's capped at $750k total for our joint return?
The $750k mortgage interest deduction limit is per return, not per person. So on a joint return, your total limit is $750k regardless of how many borrowers are on the mortgage. If you file separately, each spouse gets a $375k limit. This is also true for the pre-TCJA $1M limit that would return after 2025 if no new legislation passes. On a joint return it would be $1M total, or $500k each if filing separately.
For startup founder shares and 83(b) elections, there's a critical distinction between "cheap" stock and stock with genuine FMV differentials. Since you bought at formation with the common shares priced at $.001 (above par value of $.0001), you're likely in the clear IF that price represents genuine FMV at formation. The real question is whether $.001 per share was the legitimate FMV at the time of issuance. If you had investor interest or any other indication that the shares were actually worth more, the IRS could argue you received compensation equal to the difference. Also, many founders miss that the 83(b) election must be filed within 30 days of receiving the shares. Did you file within that window? Otherwise, the election might be invalid.
We did file within the 30-day window! Our lawyers were really strict about that deadline. We didn't have any external investors at the exact time we incorporated and issued the initial shares. We did have some friends/family invest about 3 months later at a slightly higher valuation though. Would the IRS look at that later valuation and try to apply it retroactively to our founder share purchases?
Good that you filed within the 30-day window - that's a common mistake that can't be fixed later. The IRS generally wouldn't apply a later valuation retroactively if there was a legitimate basis for the initial valuation. At formation, with no product, revenue, or investment, valuing common shares at just above par value is typically reasonable. The key is whether there were any substantive negotiations or commitments from investors already in place when you incorporated, which might suggest a higher valuation already existed. The 3-month gap before your friends/family round provides decent separation, and startups often see legitimate value creation in those early months that justifies a higher valuation. Just make sure you have documentation of the company's state at incorporation versus 3 months later to show real progress that warranted the increase.
Has anyone actually received an audit focused on 83(b) elections? I'm a founder and trying to understand how much risk there really is. Our lawyer said it's "theoretical" but he's never seen a founder audited specifically for this.
I've seen it happen. Friend was audited last year and the IRS specifically questioned the valuation used for their founder shares. They had purchased at $.001 but had term sheets from investors at $.08 in progress when they did it. IRS argued they'd undervalued by millions and owed taxes on the difference. Huge mess.
I amended my 2021 tax return last year and here's what to expect: it took about 5 months to process (way longer than they say online), but I did get about $650 back from adding some forgotten business expenses. The key is documentation - keep every receipt and evidence of those business expenses. I scanned everything and kept a spreadsheet detailing what each expense was for, just in case. Never got audited or even questioned!
Did you do it yourself or use a tax professional? I'm trying to figure out if I can handle an amendment myself or if I need to pay someone.
I did it myself using the same tax software I originally filed with. Most of the major tax platforms have an amendment feature that helps walk you through the process. It pre-fills a lot of the information from your original return, so you only need to focus on what's changing. I found it pretty straightforward, especially since I was just adding business expenses to my Schedule C. If your amendment is more complicated (like changing filing status or something more substantial), then getting professional help might make sense. But for adding missed deductions, you can probably handle it yourself.
I'm wondering about the timing - is it better to file an amendment for 2022 now or should I wait until after I file my 2023 taxes? I'm in a similar situation with finding old business receipts.
Another thing to consider - if you're having financial difficulties, you can actually elect to report the entire CARES Act distribution in the first year rather than spreading it over three years. This might be beneficial if you had a particularly low income in 2020 compared to later years. You'd pay all the tax at once, but potentially at a lower rate.
Can you still make that election now? Or was that something that had to be done on the 2020 return?
Unfortunately, the election to report the full amount in the first year had to be made on your original 2020 tax return. Since you already reported only 1/3 of the distribution as taxable in 2020, you're now locked into the three-year reporting method. The only way to change this would be to file an amended 2020 return (Form 1040-X), but that has risks and costs that likely outweigh any potential benefits at this point. You'd pay interest and possibly penalties on any additional tax from reporting the full amount in 2020, plus you'd draw additional scrutiny to your return.
Has anyone dealt with repaying a CARES Act withdrawal? I took money out in 2020 but now I'm in a better position and wondering if I should put it back to avoid the taxes for 2021 and 2022.
You can repay a CARES Act distribution within 3 years of the date you received it to avoid taxes on the repaid amount. So if you took it out in July 2020, you have until July 2023 to put it back. You'll need to file amended returns to get back any taxes you already paid on the portions reported in 2020 and 2021.
Ezra Collins
Just want to add something important: check Box 7 on your 1099-R form! The code there tells you what kind of distribution it was. If it shows code "G", that's a direct rollover to another retirement plan or IRA and usually isn't taxable. But if your tax software didn't properly report this, the state might think you took a taxable distribution. Also, check if any federal tax was withheld (Box 4). If there was, that's a clue that at least part of the distribution might be taxable. Most importantly - don't ignore the notice! States are very aggressive about collecting tax they think they're owed.
0 coins
Victoria Scott
β’Quick question - I have a 1099-R with code "7" in Box 7. What does that mean? The state is saying I owe taxes but I thought I qualified for an exception.
0 coins
Ezra Collins
β’Code "7" indicates a normal distribution, which is generally fully taxable at both federal and state levels. Unlike code "G" (which indicates a rollover), code "7" distributions don't qualify for tax-free treatment. If you believed you qualified for an exception, you may be thinking of a specific situation like being over 59Β½ (which exempts you from the early withdrawal penalty but not the income tax), or possibly a qualified disaster distribution. These would still be taxable income even if the 10% penalty was waived.
0 coins
Benjamin Johnson
Has anyone successfully disputed one of these notices? My mom got something similar for a 401k she supposedly withdrew from but she SWEARS she never took money out. The 1099-R is from a company she worked for 15 years ago and doesn't even have contact info for anymore. They want almost $3000 in taxes!!
0 coins
Zara Perez
β’I successfully disputed a similar situation. The key was getting a corrected 1099-R from the financial institution. In your mom's case, she needs to track down that old employer's 401k administrator - usually a company like Fidelity, Vanguard, etc. Even if the employer is gone, the administrator should still exist. What likely happened is either an administrative change in the plan or they may have forced a distribution if the account was small and inactive for many years (some plans automatically distribute accounts under $5,000 if you're no longer an employee). If she never received the money, they might have sent it to the state as unclaimed property!
0 coins