


Ask the community...
One thing to consider - if the car wasn't yours or your tenant's, did you contact the police before having it towed? In some jurisdictions, there are specific legal procedures for removing abandoned vehicles, even from private property. This could potentially affect whether the expense is considered "ordinary and necessary" for tax purposes.
Yes, we did call the police first! They came out and documented it, put one of those orange stickers on it, and told us we needed to wait 72 hours before having it towed. We followed all the proper channels. The police report actually said the car was reported stolen in another county, but for some reason the towing company still charged us because they said the owner didn't come claim it and they had storage fees.
That's good to hear! Since you followed the proper legal procedures, the expense would definitely qualify as an ordinary and necessary business expense for your rental activity. When you list it on your Schedule E, I recommend noting that proper procedures were followed and that it was necessary to maintain access to the property. While you probably won't need to provide that detail unless audited, it's good documentation to have.
I'm confused about safe harbor in general. Does it mean I don't have to keep receipts for small purchases for my rental? I've been saving every little Home Depot receipt even for $5 items and it's driving me crazy.
The de minimis safe harbor election does simplify recordkeeping, but you still need to keep receipts! What it really does is allow you to immediately deduct small-cost items (generally under $2,500 per item or invoice) rather than having to capitalize and depreciate them. For example, if you buy a $200 microwave for your rental unit, you can deduct it immediately rather than depreciating it over several years. But you absolutely should keep those receipts - they're your proof if audited. The safe harbor is about how you treat the expenses, not whether you need documentation.
The issue is pretty clear-cut based on IRS Publication 501. To claim someone as a dependent who's not your biological child, they must be either: 1. Your legally adopted child 2. Your stepchild (through legal marriage) 3. Your foster child (placed by authorized agency) 4. A qualifying relative who lives with you all year Since you weren't married during the tax year, your fiancΓ© can't claim your children. Period. It doesn't matter if you're getting married soon or if he supports them financially. The tax preparer was completely wrong, and honestly, I'd report them to the chain's corporate office because this is a pretty basic tax rule they should know.
Thanks for this clear explanation! So even though he pays for a lot of their expenses, the relationship test is a hard requirement? Would we need to amend both our returns now, or just his?
The relationship test is absolutely a hard requirement that can't be worked around just with financial support. The IRS is very clear on this point. You'll need to amend your fiancΓ©'s return to remove the children as dependents. You should also file or amend your return to claim them if you're eligible (meet the tests for claiming your own children). This should resolve the issue with the IRS, though you might still face some penalties or interest if there was a significant underpayment on your fiancΓ©'s original return.
I worked as a tax preparer for 10 years and this makes me so angry! The tax chain should absolutely help you fix this situation since THEY gave you incorrect advice. They're trying to avoid admitting fault by asking for a different form. Take your disallowment letter straight to corporate if the DM won't help. The specific law is in Internal Revenue Code Section 152, which defines qualifying child and qualifying relative. Being a fiancΓ© doesn't meet either test. Also, if they prepared your return with incorrect information, they should cover any penalties or fees associated with amending the return. Many tax prep companies have accuracy guarantees - check if yours does.
What about common law marriage states? Would that change anything in this situation?
Don't forget about VITA (Volunteer Income Tax Assistance) and TCE (Tax Counseling for the Elderly) programs if your income is under $60,000 or you're 60+ years old! I volunteered with VITA last year and we helped hundreds of people file completely free. You get your taxes prepared by IRS-certified volunteers and they're really thorough. Most locations can handle W-2s, simple 1099s, education credits, earned income credit, child tax credits, and basic retirement income. They typically can't do complicated business returns or rental properties though. To find a location near you, call 800-906-9887 or use the locator tool on the IRS website. Pro tip: make an appointment early in the season - slots fill up FAST!
Do VITA volunteers know how to handle gig worker income? I drove for Uber last year and also did some DoorDash. Not sure if that's too complicated for the free service.
Yes, most VITA sites can definitely handle gig worker income like Uber and DoorDash! That falls under Schedule C (self-employment) income, which most VITA volunteers are trained to prepare. Just make sure to bring all your documents - your 1099s from the platforms, a record of your mileage (this is a big deduction!), and any other business expenses like your cell phone bill portion used for the apps. Not all VITA sites handle all forms though, so when you call to make an appointment, specifically mention you have gig work income to confirm they can help with that.
Has anyone tried FreeTaxUSA? I've used it for the past 2 years and it's been really good. Federal filing is completely free regardless of income or complexity (I have investments, HSA, and 1099 income), and state is only like $15. The interface isn't as fancy as TurboTax but it gets the job done without upselling you constantly.
Has anyone considered suggesting tax-advantaged accounts? If OP hasn't maxed out their IRA or 401k for the year, putting money there won't help with the current capital gains taxes, but it could reduce their overall tax burden.
This is what I did last year. Had about 10k in stock gains, maxed out my traditional IRA contribution for $6,500 which lowered my taxable income. Didn't eliminate the capital gains tax but my overall tax bill was lower. Every bit helps.
I actually haven't maxed out my 401k this year! Been too focused on my brokerage account since that's where I've been seeing better returns. But you're right, I should probably look at the tax advantages too. My company does a 5% match so I'm definitely leaving money on the table. Thanks for bringing this up - sometimes the obvious solutions get overlooked when you're trying to find clever tax hacks.
Remember that short-term capital gains (held less than a year) are taxed as ordinary income, but long-term gains get preferential rates. If you're close to the 1-year mark on any positions, it might be worth holding just to get the lower long-term rate. Also, don't overlook state taxes! Depending on where you live, state taxes on capital gains can be significant. Some states have no income tax (like TX, FL, WA) while others have high rates. You mentioned $14,500 in gains - what tax bracket are you in? If you're in the 12% federal income tax bracket, your long-term capital gains rate could actually be 0%!
I'm in California (ouch) and in the 22% federal bracket based on my job income. Most of my gains are long-term thankfully, but I did have a few quick trades that'll be hit with short-term rates. I've been thinking about moving to a no-income-tax state at some point, but for now I'm stuck with CA's rates on top of federal. It's a double whammy.
Mateo Hernandez
One strategy your list is missing is using tax-loss harvesting from other investments to offset the capital gains from selling these funds. If you have any underperforming investments in your taxable accounts, you could sell those at a loss to offset some of the gains from your mutual funds. The tax code allows you to offset capital gains with capital losses dollar-for-dollar. And if your losses exceed your gains, you can use up to $3,000 of the excess to offset ordinary income, with any remaining losses carried forward to future years. For example, if you need to realize $50,000 in capital gains to transition these funds, but can realize $20,000 in losses from other investments, you'd only be taxed on $30,000 of gains.
0 coins
CosmicCruiser
β’I tried this approach last year but got burned by wash sale rules when I tried to buy back similar investments after selling for losses. Any tips on avoiding that pitfall while still maintaining market exposure?
0 coins
Mateo Hernandez
β’The key to avoiding wash sale issues is to sell investments at a loss and then buy something similar but not "substantially identical" to maintain your market exposure. For example, if you sell an S&P 500 index fund from one provider at a loss, you could immediately buy an ETF that tracks a different but similar index (like a total US market ETF) to maintain similar exposure without triggering wash sale rules. Another approach is to use the 31-day waiting period strategically. You could sell the underwater investment, move temporarily into a broader market fund for 31 days, then move back into your preferred investment afterward. The temporary investment gives you market exposure during the waiting period. This works well if you're rebalancing anyway or if you're willing to accept a slightly different allocation for a month.
0 coins
Aisha Khan
Has anyone calculated whether it's actually better over the long-term to just keep the active funds and pay the annual tax bills? I'm facing a similar choice and when I run the numbers, the tax hit from selling everything seems so large that it might take 8-10 years of ETF tax efficiency to break even. By then who knows what tax laws will be...
0 coins
Ethan Taylor
β’This is actually a really important point that many people miss. It depends heavily on your investment timeline and the performance difference between your current funds and the ETFs you're considering. If your active funds consistently outperform the ETFs by even a small margin, that could outweigh the tax efficiency advantage.
0 coins