


Ask the community...
Don't forget that not all business expenses at the beginning are startup costs under Section 195! If you were already "in business" (carrying on regular business activities) and not just in the startup phase, those are regular business expenses that go on Schedule C. The distinction can be tricky.
How do you determine the exact point when you're "in business" versus still in startup phase? I set up my LLC in January 2023 but didn't start making sales until March 2023. Would expenses in that January-February period count as startup costs?
Yes, those January-February expenses would likely qualify as startup costs under Section 195. The IRS generally considers you "in business" when you begin your actual business operations - which usually means when you start offering goods or services for sale. Since you formed your LLC in January but didn't begin making sales until March, the expenses incurred in that January-February window would typically be considered startup expenses subject to the Section 195 rules, including the $5,000 first-year deduction limit with the remainder amortized over 180 months.
Has anyone had issues with TurboTax miscategorizing regular business expenses as startup costs? Last year my tax software kept flagging normal expenses as Section 195 items and it was super frustrating.
I had the opposite problem - TurboTax didn't recognize my legitimate startup costs at all until I manually selected the form. Make sure you're entering your business start date correctly in the software. That's usually what triggers these categorization issues.
I've used TaxAudit twice before and had mixed experiences. First time was great, agent was responsive and handled everything professionally. Second time (different agent) was more like what you're experiencing - spotty communication and long delays. If you're not getting responses, definitely escalate to their management. They're a legitimate company but like any service business, quality can vary between individual agents. Don't just wait and hope they'll respond - be proactive about contacting them through multiple channels.
Did you end up getting your audit resolved successfully even with the unresponsive agent? I'm curious if I should just stick with them but be more aggressive about contacting management, or if I should try one of the other options people mentioned.
Yes, it did get resolved successfully, but only after I escalated to a supervisor who assigned me a new agent. The important thing is to act quickly - don't wait until the last minute hoping your current agent will suddenly become responsive. If you're only 9 days from deadline, I'd honestly consider one of the other options mentioned alongside escalating with TaxAudit. The peace of mind from knowing your audit response is being actively handled is worth it. At minimum, request an extension from the IRS (which one of the services might help with) to give yourself more breathing room. Don't let the deadline pass without taking action.
Has anyone here just responded to an audit themselves without using any service? I'm in a similar situation and wondering if these services are even worth the money or if I should just DIY it.
It really depends on the complexity of your audit and your comfort level with tax matters. Simple correspondence audits focusing on one or two items can often be handled yourself if you have good documentation. More complex audits involving multiple years, business income, or substantial amounts are riskier to handle alone. If you do go the DIY route, be extremely organized, respond only to what they're asking for (don't volunteer additional information), and consider requesting an extension if you need more time to gather documents. The IRS publication "Your Rights as a Taxpayer" is worth reading before responding.
Thanks for the advice. Mine is pretty simple - just questioning some education credits I claimed. I have all the tuition statements and receipts so maybe I'll try handling it myself first. If it gets complicated I can always get help later I guess.
One thing nobody's mentioned yet is that different types of mutual fund distributions are taxed differently. Qualified dividends are taxed at the lower capital gains rate (0%, 15%, or 20% depending on your income), while non-qualified dividends are taxed as ordinary income. Also, short-term capital gains distributions (from assets held less than a year by the fund) are taxed as ordinary income, while long-term distributions get the lower capital gains rate. This is why some tax-efficient funds (like index funds) tend to generate lower tax bills than actively managed funds that do a lot of trading.
How can you tell which distributions are qualified vs non-qualified? My 1099-DIV has all these different boxes and I'm never sure what they mean.
On your 1099-DIV, qualified dividends will be in Box 1b, while Box 1a shows total ordinary dividends (which includes both qualified and non-qualified). The difference between Box 1a and 1b would be your non-qualified dividends. Capital gain distributions will be in Box 2a. These are the fund's long-term capital gains that get the preferential tax rate. If the fund had to distribute short-term capital gains, those would actually be included in Box 1a as ordinary dividends, not in the capital gains box, which is why it can get confusing!
Does anyone use TurboTax for handling mutual fund taxes? I've heard mixed things about how well it handles cost basis adjustments.
I've used TurboTax for years with my mutual funds. It works OK if your brokerage provides good 1099s with detailed cost basis info. You can import directly from most major brokerages which helps avoid mistakes. But for older funds where you've been reinvesting for 10+ years, sometimes you need to manually adjust things, which can get complicated in TurboTax.
Here's how I would approach your specific situation: Track your ACTUAL costs for 3 months to get a true picture. Include: - Gas (easy to track) - Insurance (monthly premium) - Maintenance (oil changes, repairs, tires - annualized) - Depreciation (harder to estimate, but maybe 15% loss per year for a Jeep) - Registration/taxes - Loan interest if applicable Then calculate your true per-mile cost. For a Jeep Wrangler getting 15mpg, I'd guess you're looking at 75-80 cents per mile in reality, significantly higher than the IRS rate. For your moving decision, multiply your actual per-mile cost by the annual mileage difference to see your true savings. This will give you a much more accurate figure than using the standard deduction rate.
Thanks for this breakdown! Two questions: 1) for depreciation, should I just take the current value and multiply by 15%? And 2) would you divide all these costs by total annual mileage to get the per-mile figure?
Yes, for a quick depreciation estimate, take the current value and multiply by 15% (Wranglers hold value well, so you might even use 12-13%). That gives you annual depreciation cost. You've got it exactly right for calculating the per-mile figure. Add up all your annual vehicle costs (gas, insurance, maintenance, depreciation, etc.), then divide by your total annual mileage. This gives you your true cost per mile. Most people are surprised how much higher this is than they expected - especially for vehicles with lower fuel efficiency.
Just want to mention - don't forget that the $0.54 (now $0.67) mileage rate is for business/self-employment use. If you're calculating for a regular commute to your job, that's not tax deductible at all under current tax law. So while calculating your actual savings from moving closer is definitely smart financial planning, just be aware you can't deduct regular commuting miles on your taxes regardless of the rate. The IRS considers commuting a personal expense.
Wait really?? I've been deducting my commute miles for years! Is this a new rule?
Paolo Longo
22 Honestly? At $95k with education expenses and a 401k rollover, I'd go with a CPA for at least this year. I'm a DIY person normally, but when I had a similar situation (grad school + job change), I used a CPA and she found nearly $3,000 more in my refund than TurboTax's estimate. TurboTax is fine for simple returns, but it's only as good as the info you put in. A good tax pro knows what questions to ask that you might not even think about. Plus they can help set you up for better tax planning next year.
0 coins
Paolo Longo
โข9 Do you have any tips for finding a good CPA that won't charge an arm and a leg? I've called around and gotten quotes between $350-600 which seems really high.
0 coins
Paolo Longo
โข22 For finding an affordable CPA, check with your local Chamber of Commerce or ask colleagues who are in similar financial situations. Many smaller accounting firms or independent CPAs charge less than the big tax prep chains while providing more personalized service. Another option is to look for an Enrolled Agent (EA) rather than a CPA. EAs specialize specifically in taxes and often charge less than CPAs while still having excellent tax knowledge. For your situation, an EA might be perfect since you don't need full accounting services, just tax expertise.
0 coins
Paolo Longo
3 Has anyone used the paid version of TurboTax with the live CPA assistance? Wondering if that's a good middle ground - cheaper than a full CPA but still get professional advice?
0 coins
Paolo Longo
โข16 I used TurboTax Live last year for my return which included some freelance work and education expenses. It was decent - you get to video chat with a CPA who reviews your return, but I found the experience a bit rushed. The CPA spent about 15 minutes on my return which wasn't enough to dig deep into potential optimizations.
0 coins