


Ask the community...
One thing your friend should be careful about - this kind of job can sometimes be a scam. Make sure it's a legitimate company and that the work is actually what they say it is. I've seen "chat operator" jobs that turned out to be romance scams or worse. If it's legit though, she's definitely a self-employed contractor. She should save around 30% of everything she makes for taxes. That'll cover both income tax and self-employment tax in most cases.
How would you verify if the company is legitimate? I got offered something similar recently and now I'm worried.
Good question! Here are some ways to verify legitimacy: Research the company name + "scam" or "reviews" online. Check for a professional website with proper contact information, physical address, and company registration details. Be suspicious if they have no online presence or very new websites. Look them up on business registries. For UK companies, you can check Companies House (the UK's official company register). If they claim to be a registered business but don't appear in official records, that's a major red flag.
I did customer service chat work for a Canadian company last year, similar to your friend's situation. Make sure she's tracking EVERYTHING. I use a simple Google Sheet with: - Date - Hours worked - Number of messages sent - Payment received - Any work-related expenses Trust me, it makes tax time so much easier! And definitely set aside 25-30% of each payment for taxes. I learned this the hard way and got hit with a big tax bill in April :
Did you have to file any special forms because the company was foreign? I'm starting something similar next month.
People repeating "keep your mortgage for the tax deduction" are basically just parroting outdated advice from the 1980s-90s when: 1. Interest rates were WAY higher (remember 12-18% mortgages?) 2. The standard deduction was much lower 3. Tax brackets were different Today's math is totally different. If you're paying 6% interest on a mortgage, you're paying $6,000 per year on every $100k borrowed. Even in the 37% tax bracket (highest possible), you'd save $2,220 in taxes while spending $6,000. That's a guaranteed loss of $3,780! Being mortgage-free is financial freedom. Congrats on paying it off and don't second-guess yourself!
Does this calculation change if you have other substantial deductions already? Like if I'm already itemizing because of large charitable contributions and state taxes?
If you're already itemizing due to other substantial deductions, then the mortgage interest would provide some additional tax benefit, but the math still typically doesn't favor keeping a mortgage just for tax purposes. Let's say you already have $25,000 in itemized deductions from charitable giving and state taxes. Adding $10,000 in mortgage interest would increase your itemized deductions to $35,000, which is $7,300 more than the standard deduction for married filing jointly. At your 24% tax bracket, that additional $7,300 in deductions would save you about $1,752 in taxes. But you're still paying $10,000 in interest to get that $1,752 benefit - a net loss of $8,248. The mortgage is still costing you significantly more than you're saving in taxes.
I'm an accountant (not giving official tax advice here!) and I cringe every time I hear the "need mortgage for taxes" thing. Let's break it down super simple: Standard deduction for married 2025: $27,700 To itemize, ALL your deductions combined need to exceed this amount Deductions might include: - Mortgage interest - State/local taxes (capped at $10k) - Charitable giving - Medical expenses (only amount > 7.5% of AGI) Most people simply won't exceed $27,700 in combined deductions, making the mortgage interest irrelevant for tax purposes. You're actually financially AHEAD by NOT having a mortgage!
This makes so much sense when you explain it that way. My parents have always told me never to pay off the mortgage early because of taxes, but they bought their house in the 70s when everything was different! Thank u for clearing this up!
Another accountant here - can confirm this is 100% correct. I see this misconception ALL THE TIME with clients. Being debt-free is almost always better than paying interest for a partial tax deduction. The only exception might be if you're investing the difference at a higher return, but that's a risk/reward discussion, not a tax one.
Another option: you can create an online account with the IRS at irs.gov to access your tax records, including prior year AGI. It takes some time to verify your identity initially, but then you'll always have access to the correct numbers for filing. This saved me a lot of headache after I had a similar situation a couple years ago.
I tried creating an IRS account and they wanted me to verify my identity through ID.me which required uploading my driver's license and doing a video selfie. Is that normal or did I click on something phishy?
That's completely normal. The IRS uses ID.me as their identity verification service. They do require documents like your driver's license and a video selfie to confirm you're really you. It feels intrusive, but it's their official process to protect tax data. The alternative verification methods (like answering questions about your credit history) sometimes don't work for everyone, so the ID verification becomes necessary. Once you get through that initial setup though, accessing your tax records becomes much easier for future filings.
Fyi, if your return is accepted even with the wrong prior year AGI (which sometimes happens), don't worry about fixing it. The prior year AGI is ONLY used for signature verification during e-filing, it doesn't affect your actual tax calculation or refund amount at all.
Wait really? So if it gets accepted anyway, there's no problem? I've been stressing for no reason?
Did you recently file for bankruptcy? If not, that 1099-C with Code A might be wrong. I had a creditor send me a 1099-C with Code A even though my debt was settled through a debt management program, not bankruptcy. Had to call them to get a corrected 1099-C with the right code.
I see this happening a lot actually. The coding on 1099-Cs is often wrong! Another common mistake is using Code B (insolvency) when it should be Code A (bankruptcy) or vice versa. Always double-check these forms because the codes determine how you'll need to complete Form 982.
Yes to your question! If the 1099-C has Code A in Box 6, that means the creditor is reporting the debt was canceled in a bankruptcy. Line 1a on Form 982 corresponds to discharge of debt in a Title 11 case (which means bankruptcy). So check line 1a. As for why they issue the forms at all - it's because the IRS requires creditors to report ALL canceled debt over $600, regardless of whether it's taxable or not. The 1099-C doesn't determine taxability; it just reports the cancellation. You then determine if it's excludable on your tax return using Form 982.
Yara Haddad
This issue of wealthy audits being closed isn't just about staffing - it's also about priorities. I worked as a revenue agent for 12 years before leaving last year. The real problem is that the complexity of high-net-worth returns requires specialized knowledge that takes years to develop. When experienced agents leave or get reassigned, those cases often get shelved. The public doesn't realize that auditing someone with multiple partnerships, S-corps, trusts, and international holdings can take 2-3 years of work. With the pressure to close cases and meet metrics, managers often decide to accept partial settlements or just close cases rather than reassign them to already overworked agents.
0 coins
Keisha Robinson
ā¢Is it true that the IRS is more likely to audit earned income tax credit claims than millionaires now? I read something about that and it seemed outrageous.
0 coins
Yara Haddad
ā¢Yes, that's unfortunately accurate. EITC audits are largely automated and can be completed quickly, which makes them an easy target for meeting statistical goals. A revenue agent might complete 50-100 EITC audits in the same time it takes to thoroughly examine one complex high-wealth return. The IRS uses a cost-benefit analysis that looks at "return on investment" for audit hours. While a wealthy taxpayer audit might ultimately recover more money, the hours required are exponentially higher. Combined with the staffing shortages in specialized divisions, this creates a system where lower and middle-income taxpayers face proportionally higher audit rates than they should.
0 coins
Paolo Conti
Does anyone know if the IRS is going to address this imbalance in their approach? I read they got additional funding recently - is any of that going towards actually fixing the problem with wealthy taxpayer audits?
0 coins
Amina Sow
ā¢Some of the funding is supposed to go toward hiring specialized agents for high-income and business audits, but there's a huge training gap. Even if they hire people now, it takes 2-3 years to get them fully trained on complex audit issues like partnership returns and international tax. Meanwhile, experienced agents are retiring or leaving for private sector jobs that pay 2-3x their government salary.
0 coins
Paolo Conti
ā¢That makes sense, but it still feels like such a fundamentally unfair system. Really appreciate the explanation! I guess we shouldn't expect this to be fixed anytime soon then.
0 coins