


Ask the community...
Another thing to consider: If you file separately, you'll lose several other tax benefits besides just the premium tax credit situation. You won't be able to claim: - Student loan interest deduction - Tuition and fees deduction - EIC in most cases - Child and dependent care credit - Some education credits Plus the standard deduction as a couple filing jointly is exactly 2x the single amount ($29,200 vs $14,600 for 2025), so there's no penalty there, but tax brackets for MFS aren't as favorable as MFJ. The $1,950 hit is painful but it's almost certainly your best option.
Thank you, I hadn't even thought about all those other tax benefits that would be affected. We do have some student loan interest and education credits that would be impacted. Looks like filing jointly and taking the premium tax credit hit is even more clearly the right move than I initially thought.
Happy to help! Yeah, the MFS status really limits a lot of tax benefits, which is why it's rarely the optimal choice unless there are very specific circumstances. The premium tax credit "marriage penalty" is frustrating, but thankfully it's just a one-time adjustment you're dealing with. Next year you'll be able to plan your insurance coverage for the full year as a married couple and avoid this issue completely.
One more thought - have you considered if either of you could increase retirement contributions before the end of the year to lower your MAGI? If you're close to a threshold for the premium tax credit, sometimes putting an extra $1-2k into a traditional IRA or 401k can drop you into a lower income tier and reduce the amount you have to repay.
This is really smart. I did this exact thing last year. Was going to owe $2,400 in premium tax credits after getting married, but maxed out my HSA ($3,850) and put another $2,000 in my traditional IRA. Dropped our MAGI just enough to reduce the repayment to only $800. Definitely worth looking into!
I hadn't thought about this angle! We do have some room to make additional retirement contributions. I'll need to check exactly how close we are to the next MAGI threshold for the premium tax credits. Even if it just reduces the amount a bit, that's still a win since we'd be putting money into our retirement rather than just paying it to the IRS. Thanks for the suggestion!
Another thing to consider - if your child has earned income, you might want to help them open a Roth IRA! They can contribute the lesser of their earned income or $6,500 (2025 limit). Since your child probably has a low tax rate now, a Roth can be an amazing long-term investment vehicle. I started my daughter on this when she got her first 1099 income at 15, and she's already building a nice nest egg. Just make sure the income is legitimate and documented in case the IRS questions it.
That's a great idea! I hadn't even thought about retirement accounts. Would we need to wait until after we file taxes to open the Roth IRA, or can we do it now based on the 1099 amount?
You can open and fund the Roth IRA anytime between January 1, 2025 and the tax filing deadline (usually April 15, 2026) for the 2025 tax year. You don't need to wait until after filing taxes. Remember that the contribution limit is based on earned income after business expenses. So if your teen's net self-employment income ends up being $550 after deducting the computer and software expenses, their maximum Roth contribution would be $550 for the year, not the full $1,400 from the 1099-NEC.
Don't forget your kid might need to make quarterly estimated tax payments if they continue this self-employment gig! My son got hit with an underpayment penalty because I didn't realize this applied to him.
Since this hasn't been mentioned yet - you should know that profit sharing contributions are completely discretionary year to year, which is incredibly valuable for professional practices with fluctuating income. Some years you can contribute the full 25%, other years you can reduce or skip it entirely depending on cash flow. Also, make sure the plan documents are properly amended to include the profit sharing component. This is something your plan administrator needs to handle formally - you can't just start making profit sharing contributions without updating the plan design. One thing your CPA might not have emphasized: the timing of cash flow matters. The S Corp needs sufficient profits distributed from the LLC to make these contributions. Planning the timing of distributions from LLC to S Corp becomes important if you want to maximize these retirement contributions while maintaining adequate operating capital.
Thanks for this insight. The discretionary nature is really appealing since her income can vary quite a bit. Do you know if there's a deadline for deciding whether to make a profit sharing contribution for the current tax year? Like could we wait until March 2025 to decide about 2024 contributions?
You can actually wait until your S Corp's tax filing deadline including extensions to make the profit sharing contribution for the prior year. So for 2024 contributions, if your S Corp files for an extension, you could have until September 15, 2025, to make the decision and the actual contribution. This flexibility is one of the biggest advantages of profit sharing plans for professionals with variable income. Just make sure the plan documents are amended before the end of the plan year in which you first want to make profit sharing contributions. The plan has to allow for profit sharing before you can actually make those contributions.
Wait, I'm confused about something! You said the LLC already handles your wife's regular 401K contribution before the money reaches the S Corp. Does that mean she's technically an employee of the LLC rather than the S Corp? Because that would change everything about how this works. If she's getting a W-2 from the S Corp (which it sounds like she is), then the LLC shouldn't be handling any 401k deductions - that should all be happening at the S Corp level. The way you described it sounds like there might be a potential compliance issue with how things are currently structured.
Don't forget about depreciation for bigger purchases! I made the mistake of incorrectly categorizing everything my first year. For items over $2,500, you might want to consider Section 179 deduction or bonus depreciation rather than just expensing them outright. For example, that desk you mentioned could potentially be depreciated over 7 years OR you could use Section 179 to deduct it all upfront. Same with expensive computers or other equipment. Also, keep track of any repairs vs. improvements to your home office space. Repairs can generally be deducted immediately (based on your home office percentage) while improvements might need to be depreciated.
Is there a dollar threshold for when something should be depreciated vs just expensed? Like if my desk was only $300, do I still need to depreciate it or can I just deduct it all at once under supplies/furniture?
There's actually a "de minimis safe harbor election" that lets you expense (rather than depreciate) items that cost less than $2,500 per item or invoice. So for your $300 desk, you could absolutely deduct it all at once instead of depreciating it over several years. Many small business owners don't know about this and end up creating unnecessary complexity by depreciating smaller items. For slightly larger purchases, Section 179 expensing is another great option that lets you deduct the full cost of qualifying equipment in the year you put it into service, rather than depreciating it. The limits are quite generous for small businesses (up to $1,160,000 for 2023).
Did your accountant explain the difference between the regular method and simplified method for home office? The simplified method lets you deduct $5 per square foot (up to 300 sq ft) without tracking actual expenses. Might be easier than tracking all those utility percentages!
Simplified method is WAY easier but usually results in a smaller deduction in my experience. I tracked both methods for two years and regular method gave me about $1,200 more in deductions. Depends on your situation though.
LilMama23
I'm a manager (not in your company) and what your employer is suggesting is absolutely wrong and illegal. We once had an owner suggest something similar and our entire management team had to step in and explain the serious legal consequences. Here's what your company SHOULD be doing: - Providing FMLA paperwork if they have enough employees to qualify - Looking into short-term disability options - Checking if your state has paid family leave (many do now) - Being honest about what they can and cannot provide Asking you to lie on government forms is never okay, and shows they're trying to exploit the system rather than properly supporting their employees.
0 coins
Miguel HernΓ‘ndez
β’Thank you for this perspective. Could you clarify about the FMLA part? I thought that only applied to companies with 50+ employees, and we only have 9 total. Are there similar protections for smaller businesses?
0 coins
LilMama23
β’You're absolutely right about FMLA - it only applies to companies with 50+ employees, so your company is too small to be required to provide that protection. I should have been more clear. However, many states have enacted their own family leave laws that extend to smaller businesses. Depending on where you live, there might be state-specific protections even though you're not covered by federal FMLA. For example, some states require even small employers to provide job protection and/or paid leave. That's definitely worth looking into based on your specific location.
0 coins
Dmitri Volkov
Wait, I'm confused about one thing - isn't your employer allowed to lay you off for business reasons? If their business really is down 30%, couldn't they legitimately lay you off and then you'd be eligible for unemployment? Or is it specifically because they're promising to hire you back that makes this fraud?
0 coins
Gabrielle Dubois
β’The fraud part is the intentional misrepresentation. If they're specifically timing a "layoff" to coincide with maternity leave and have already promised to bring her back at a specific date, that's not a true layoff - it's a planned temporary absence that they're trying to disguise as a layoff to shift costs to the state. A legitimate layoff would be based solely on business needs, not timed specifically to coincide with a planned medical event, and wouldn't come with a guaranteed rehire date.
0 coins