


Ask the community...
One thing to keep in mind about partnership years: if you have a foreign partnership with a fiscal year-end that doesn't match up with your tax year, you might have a mismatch between when income is earned and when it's reported. For example, if your foreign partnership's fiscal year ends on May 31, 2024, you're reporting income on your 2024 return that was actually earned between June 1, 2023 and May 31, 2024. Some of that income was from 2023! This is all normal and how it's supposed to work, but it can create planning challenges if the partnership has significant fluctuations in income from year to year.
That's a really good point I hadn't considered. So even though some of the partnership income was earned in 2023, I'm reporting all of it on my 2024 personal return because the partnership's fiscal year ended within my 2024 tax year? Does this create any issues if I also have to file foreign bank account reports (FBARs) or Form 8938? Do those forms follow the same rules?
Yes, that's exactly right. All of the partnership income from their complete fiscal year (June 2023-May 2024) goes on your 2024 personal return. That's just how partnership taxation works. For FBARs and Form 8938, those follow different rules. Those forms are based on the calendar year reporting and the maximum value of accounts during that calendar year. So your FBAR and 8938 for 2024 would cover January 1 to December 31, 2024, regardless of any partnership fiscal years.
Has anyone tried calling the Taxpayer Advocate Service about this instead of the regular IRS number? I've heard they can sometimes help with confusing form issues like this.
The Taxpayer Advocate Service is really only for when you have an actual tax problem that hasn't been resolved through normal IRS channels. They probably won't help with just form questions unless you've already filed incorrectly and are having issues. Your best bet for form questions is either the regular IRS help line (if you can get through) or a qualified tax professional who specializes in international taxation.
The most tax-efficient way is usually a small salary just above the NI threshold (around ยฃ9,500) and then dividends for the rest. That way you get your personal allowance but don't pay much NI, and dividends are taxed more favorably than salary. But you CANNOT just use company money for personal stuff - that's basically stealing from the company (even if you own it).
What about directors loan accounts? I've heard you can borrow from your company?
Yes, director's loan accounts are an option, but they come with strict rules. You can borrow from your company, but if the loan exceeds ยฃ10,000, it's considered a benefit in kind and you'll pay income tax on it. Additionally, if the loan isn't repaid within 9 months after your company's year-end, the company will have to pay a temporary tax (currently 33.75%) on the outstanding amount. When the loan is eventually repaid, the tax can be reclaimed, but it creates cashflow issues. Also, if you repeatedly take out loans and repay them (bed and breakfasting), HMRC has anti-avoidance rules that will catch this. Director's loans are legitimate but not a good long-term strategy for extracting value compared to the salary+dividend approach.
Yes! My brother-in-law tried something similar with his plumbing business. HMRC did a routine VAT inspection which led to them looking deeper at his accounts. They found personal expenses being paid directly from the business account and hit him with additional income tax, NI contributions, penalties AND interest going back 4 years. Cost him over ยฃ30k in total and now he's on their high-risk list for future audits.
As a CPA who's done dozens of these arrangements, here's what those YouTube videos NEVER tell you: 1. Cost segregation accelerates depreciation you would eventually get anyway. You're not creating new deductions, just moving them forward. 2. When you sell the property, all that accelerated depreciation gets "recaptured" at a 25% tax rate. This creates a potentially massive tax bill when you sell unless you do a 1031 exchange. 3. Documentation is EVERYTHING. I've seen clients lose audits because they claimed 100+ hours but couldn't prove it with contemporaneous records. 4. You need to be a "real estate professional" AND materially participate in each property to deduct passive losses against active income. Most W2 folks with demanding jobs fail the first test. These strategies are legitimate but much more nuanced than clickbait videos suggest.
Question about the real estate professional requirements - I've heard you need 750 hours annually in real estate activities to qualify. If my spouse does property management full-time while I keep my W2 job, does that work for us filing jointly? Or do I personally need to qualify?
Your spouse can absolutely qualify as the real estate professional while you maintain your W2 job. This is actually the most common arrangement I see with my high-income clients. As long as your spouse spends 750+ hours annually in real estate activities (and more time on real estate than any other employment), their status allows the rental losses to offset your joint income on a married filing jointly return. Just be aware that your spouse needs to be actively involved in day-to-day operations, not just nominally listed as the manager. The IRS looks closely at these arrangements, so documentation of your spouse's time and activities is crucial. Keep calendars, logs, emails, and all evidence of their involvement.
Has anyone used a short term rental property to offset W2 income and actually gotten through an IRS audit successfully? I'm worried about triggering an audit if I suddenly show huge losses against my $420k salary. Also, anyone used TurboTax to file with this kind of arrangement or do you need a specialized accountant?
I wouldn't recommend TurboTax for this. My brother tried doing this himself with TurboTax and missed several key forms and elections that would have maximized his deductions. He ended up hiring a real estate tax specialist who amended his return and found an additional $23k in tax savings he'd missed.
One thing nobody's mentioned yet is Social Security benefits. If there's a significant income disparity between you two, marriage can provide substantial benefits later in life. The lower-earning spouse can claim benefits based on the higher-earning spouse's record. Also, estate tax and inheritance issues are much simpler for married couples. If something happens to one of you, a spouse can inherit everything tax-free, while unmarried partners might face substantial taxes depending on your state.
Does this Social Security benefit apply even if both spouses work their whole careers? I thought that only mattered if one spouse didn't work much or at all.
Yes, it can still matter even if both work their full careers. Each person gets their own benefit based on their earnings, but they're also entitled to 50% of their spouse's benefit if that amount is higher than their own. So if one person consistently earned more, the lower-earning spouse could potentially get a higher benefit through the spousal benefit. It also matters tremendously for survivor benefits. If one spouse passes away, the surviving spouse can switch to the deceased spouse's full benefit amount if it's higher than their own. Unmarried partners don't have access to this option regardless of how long they've been together.
Having been through this myself, you're missing a critical view of the long game. Your immediate tax hit might be negative, but consider: 1) Health insurance and beneficiary status on retirement accounts is much simpler married 2) One massive advantage: unlimited gift/estate tax exemption between spouses 3) Legal protections if one of you becomes ill or incapacitated 4) With kids, certain education credits phase out at lower incomes for single filers My spouse and I calculated about a $1,800 marriage penalty annually at first, but when my income dropped after having our second child, we actually benefited from filing jointly. Life changes, and being married gives you more flexibility as your situation evolves.
This is really helpful. Question though: for education credits, do both parents' incomes count anyway if they both claim the child as a dependent in alternating years (even if unmarried)? Or does it only look at the income of whoever claims the child that year?
Ayla Kumar
7 Your tax RETURN is the paperwork you file. Your tax REFUND is the money you get back. A lot of people mix these up. When you make more money, you move into higher tax brackets. While your overall withholding went up, it might not have increased at the same rate as your tax liability. The withholding tables that employers use aren't perfect for everyone's situation. You didn't necessarily do anything wrong. This is actually pretty common when people get significant raises. If you want a bigger refund next year, you can adjust your W-4 to have additional amounts withheld from each paycheck.
0 coins
Ayla Kumar
โข22 Thanks for the terminology correction! I always mess that up ๐คฆโโ๏ธ So to get a bigger refund, do I just put a specific dollar amount on line 4(c) of the W-4? Or do I need to change other parts of the form too?
0 coins
Ayla Kumar
โข7 Yes, line 4(c) on the W-4 is exactly where you'd put additional withholding. You can specify an extra amount to be withheld from each paycheck. As for how much to add, a rough calculation would be to decide how much extra refund you want, then divide by the number of pay periods remaining in the year. For example, if you want an extra $1,200 in your refund and get paid twice a month, you might put $50 in line 4(c) ($1,200 รท 24 pay periods = $50 per paycheck).
0 coins
Ayla Kumar
23 Has anyone else noticed that the standard deduction doesn't seem to keep up with inflation? When my income went up similarly to OP's, I found that deductions and credits didn't scale proportionally. The whole system seems designed to take a bigger percentage as you earn more.
0 coins
Ayla Kumar
โข16 The standard deduction actually does increase with inflation each year. For 2025 it's $14,600 for single filers, up from $14,350 in 2024. The problem is that tax brackets also adjust with inflation, but when you get a big raise that outpaces inflation, you still move into higher brackets regardless. What really doesn't scale well are certain credits and deductions that start to phase out at higher income levels. That could be another factor in why OP's refund was smaller despite paying more tax.
0 coins