This is exactly what I needed to see! I filed on March 1st and got my 570 code on March 14th, then the 971 code appeared March 16th. So I'm currently on day 23 since filing and feeling pretty anxious about the whole situation. Your 28-day timeline from filing to DDD gives me hope that I should see some movement soon! What's particularly reassuring is that you still received your full refund despite having these codes - I was starting to worry that something was seriously wrong with my return. I've never seen these codes before and the IRS website doesn't really explain them in plain English. Did you end up calling them at all during the process, or did everything just resolve automatically? I'm trying to decide if I should just wait it out based on your timeline or try to get through to an agent for peace of mind.

This timeline is incredibly helpful - thank you for documenting everything so precisely! I'm currently on day 11 since filing and just got both the 570 and 971 codes yesterday, so your 28-day experience gives me a realistic framework to work with. What really stands out to me is how you mentioned the business tax concern because I'm in the exact same boat. I have a small side business and was actually hesitating to file my Schedule C because I wasn't sure if these personal return codes would somehow flag my business filing for extra review. It's reassuring to hear you don't think they're connected. I've been driving myself crazy checking my transcript multiple times a day, but seeing your detailed breakdown helps me realize this is just their normal process this year. Did you ever find out what specifically triggered the hold when you received the 971 notice, or are you still waiting for that to arrive in the mail? The uncertainty is definitely the worst part of this whole experience!

One thing nobody's mentioned is that if you're helping pay for his housing and you co-signed the lease, that creates an even stronger case that you're financially connected households. The IRS looks at financial entanglement as much as physical location. I found this out the hard way when my spouse was working a temporary assignment across the country. We had separate addresses but shared finances, and the IRS determined we were "living together" for MFS purposes during an audit. Ended up having to remove excess Roth contributions and pay penalties. Document everything very carefully, especially if you're going to try claiming you lived separately the entire year. Bank statements showing separate finances and utility bills in separate names can help if you ever get questioned.

I think there's confusion about what "lived with" means for IRS purposes. It doesn't just mean physically under same roof. If spouse is away for school or job but its temporary and you're still financially connected (like paying their rent!!), you're considered living together. I've been through this exact situation. Wife in residency in different state. I paid some of her bills. IRS considers that LIVING TOGETHER for MFS status. Had to remove roth contributions and pay penalty. Really sucked. If you already contributed to Roth and need to file MFS as "lived together" you should look into removing the excess contribution ASAP before you file. Theres a process for it to avoid bigger penalties.

I've been following this thread and wanted to add another perspective that might help. I'm a tax preparer and see situations like this all the time since the TCJA changes. One approach that's sometimes overlooked is negotiating for your employer to cover this as a "business travel" expense rather than relocation. If your assignment is truly temporary (sounds like 14 months qualifies), and you're maintaining your primary residence in Dallas, there might be ways to structure this differently. Some companies will pay for extended stay hotels or corporate housing for long-term assignments, which they can deduct as business expenses. This might be easier for them to approve than direct cash reimbursements. You could also explore whether they'd be willing to book and pay for the housing directly rather than reimbursing you. Another angle: if you're going to be managing other employees on this project, you might have some leverage to negotiate better terms. Project managers are expensive to replace mid-stream, especially on critical assignments. Document every conversation about this and keep pushing. The worst they can say is no, but you might be surprised how much companies will budge when faced with the real possibility of losing key people over what amounts to an accounting decision on their end.

I'm going through almost the exact same situation right now! My company is relocating me to Denver for 16 months and also pulled the "budget constraints" excuse after initially promising housing support. It's so frustrating how they can just change the terms after you've already committed to the project. What's been helpful for me is treating this like a business negotiation rather than asking for a favor. I put together a one-page summary showing: - The total cost impact ($1700 x 14 months = $23,800) - What it would cost them to recruit and train a replacement if I declined - How this affects my ability to focus on project deliverables vs. financial stress I also found out that our company policy manual has language about "ensuring employee success on critical assignments" which I'm using to support my case. Sometimes there are policies buried in employee handbooks that HR forgets about but will honor if you reference them specifically. Still negotiating, but they've already agreed to cover my flights home twice a month and are "reviewing options" for housing assistance. The key seems to be making it clear that this isn't just about the money - it's about removing barriers to project success. Definitely don't give up on this! Companies hate losing experienced project managers mid-assignment, and $1700/month is nothing compared to what they'd spend on recruitment and training.

Just want to add that if the person absolutely refuses to provide their SSN and you still pay them anyway, YOUR ORGANIZATION will be responsible for the backup withholding (24% of what you paid them). And the IRS can assess penalties for failure to obtain a W-9!!! I learned this the hard way with our arts nonprofit. We were fined $250 per missing W-9 during an audit. Plus we had to pay the backup withholding we should have collected. Totaly wiped out our small reserve fund.

Based on my experience with our local community center's nonprofit, I'd strongly recommend being very clear with your media person about why you need their SSN and what protections are in place. Many people don't realize that the W-9 form they're completing stays with your organization - it's not sent to the IRS. You might also explain that this is a standard business practice for any organization paying contractors over $600, not just nonprofits. Sometimes framing it as "this is what every business does" rather than "the IRS requires this" makes people more comfortable. If they're still hesitant, you could offer to show them your organization's data security policies or explain how you store and protect sensitive information. We found that transparency about our processes helped reluctant contractors feel more confident about sharing their information. One last suggestion - if the promotional work might extend beyond this year, make sure you're tracking payments by calendar year, not by project. You could potentially split the work across two calendar years to stay under the $600 threshold if that makes sense for your timeline.

This is such a common confusion for people with gambling activities! I went through the exact same thing a couple years ago when I had a big win early in the year but ended up net negative overall. Just to clarify what others have said - you absolutely must report that full $425,000 as income regardless of your net loss. It's counterintuitive but that's how the tax code works. The W2-G triggers the reporting requirement. One thing I'd add is make sure you understand the "session" vs "annual" reporting difference. Some people think they can net wins and losses within the same day or session, but that's not how it works for tax purposes. Every individual win over the reporting threshold gets reported as income. Also, since you're dealing with such large amounts, you might want to consider making estimated tax payments if you haven't already. Even if you plan to deduct the losses, you could face underpayment penalties if you don't have enough withholding to cover the tax on that $425k. Have you calculated whether itemizing (to claim the gambling losses) would actually be better than the standard deduction in your case? With losses that large, it probably makes sense, but worth running the numbers both ways.

I've been dealing with gambling tax issues for years and wanted to share a few additional tips that might help: First, regarding your question about reporting both the W2-G amount AND the additional winnings - you only report what's on your W2-G forms as income. The additional $1,179,649 you mentioned doesn't get reported separately as income since you didn't receive tax documents for those amounts. However, when calculating your gambling loss deduction (if you itemize), you can include ALL your losses for the year - not just losses related to the W2-G activity. So your total gambling losses of $425,000+ can be deducted against your total gambling winnings. A couple of important things to remember: - Keep ALL your records - win/loss statements, receipts, bank records showing deposits/withdrawals to gambling accounts, travel expenses if you went to casinos, etc. - The IRS considers gambling losses to include not just the money you lost betting, but also expenses directly related to your gambling activities - If you do get audited, they'll want to see detailed records that support both your winnings AND your losses Given the amounts involved here, I'd strongly recommend consulting with a tax professional who has experience with gambling taxation. The rules can be tricky and the stakes are high enough that professional guidance would be worth the cost.