has anyone tried using the free version of turbotax online? not sure if i need to pay for deluxe or if the free version would work for my situation (just w2 income

For your situation with W-2 plus some 1099 income, I'd actually lean toward the online version. I've been filing taxes for my family for years and the online version handles 1099s really well - it walks you through everything step by step and has gotten much better at importing data directly from employers and clients. The main advantage for you would be convenience - you can work on it from anywhere, and it automatically saves your progress. Since you're not dealing with super complex stuff like rental properties or multiple businesses, you probably don't need the extra forms and control that the desktop version offers. One tip though - don't get trapped by their "free" marketing. With 1099 income, you'll likely need at least the Deluxe version ($60-80 typically) to handle the self-employment forms properly. But honestly, that's still worth it compared to paying a tax preparer hundreds of dollars for what sounds like a pretty straightforward return.

Just wanted to add some clarification on the MAGI calculation since I see some confusion in the comments. You're absolutely right that traditional IRA contributions don't reduce MAGI for determining deductibility - that would indeed be circular. However, it's worth noting that if you WERE eligible for the deduction (i.e., if your income was lower), THEN the traditional IRA contribution would reduce your MAGI for other tax purposes like determining eligibility for other credits or benefits. In your case at $93k post-401k, you're unfortunately well above the threshold. But here's a potential strategy: if you can increase your 401k contribution by even more (up to the $23,000 limit for 2025), that could potentially get your MAGI low enough to qualify for at least a partial traditional IRA deduction. For example, if you could contribute an additional $7k+ to your 401k, that would bring your MAGI down to around $86k or below, potentially making you eligible for the traditional IRA deduction. Of course, this only works if you have the cash flow to support the higher 401k contributions.

Great discussion here! Just to add one more perspective - I was in almost the exact same situation last year. Making around $105k, maxing out my 401k, and thinking I could squeeze out a traditional IRA deduction. What I learned the hard way is that once you're covered by a workplace plan, those income limits are pretty strict. At $93k MAGI after your 401k contributions, you're definitely above the $86k cutoff for any deduction. I ended up going the backdoor Roth route that several people mentioned. The process was actually simpler than I expected - contributed $6k to a traditional IRA (non-deductible), then immediately converted it to Roth. No taxes on the conversion since there were no earnings, and now that money grows tax-free. One thing to watch out for - make sure you don't have any other traditional IRA balances with pre-tax money, or you'll run into the pro-rata rule complications. If you do, consider rolling those into your current employer's 401k first if they allow it. The backdoor Roth has been a game changer for getting more money into tax-advantaged accounts at our income level. Definitely worth exploring!

My husband and I were in this situation last year. Found out the hard way that filing separately was a HUGE mistake. Lost out on: - Child tax credit ($2000 per kid!) - Student loan interest deduction - Education credits - Higher tax brackets kicked in sooner Just file jointly, trust me! We refiled an amended return and got back almost $4300 more!

Just to add another perspective - I'm a CPA and see this situation frequently. The math is pretty straightforward: filing jointly almost always wins when one spouse has zero income. The standard deduction alone ($29,200 for MFJ vs $14,600 for MFS in 2024) usually makes the decision for you. Plus, many credits like the Child and Dependent Care Credit and Earned Income Credit are only available when filing jointly. One small tip: if your wife was looking for work during any part of the year, keep track of job search expenses and any childcare costs incurred while she was interviewing. These can sometimes qualify for deductions or credits that people miss. The "claiming spouse as dependent" idea comes up a lot but it's never allowed - the tax code specifically prohibits it regardless of income levels.

Just want to add a heads up about the timing requirements for qualified ESPPs - make sure you understand the holding period rules before you sell! For a qualified disposition (which gets more favorable tax treatment), you need to hold the shares for at least 1 year from the purchase date AND 2 years from the offering date. If you sell before meeting both requirements, it's a disqualifying disposition and you'll owe ordinary income tax on the discount amount. Since you mentioned you sold at a loss, the disqualifying disposition might actually work in your favor tax-wise in this case. But definitely something to keep in mind for future ESPP transactions. The holding period requirements can really impact your overall tax strategy with these plans.

Great question about ESPP reporting! I went through the same confusion last year. Here's what I learned after digging through IRS publications and talking to a tax professional: The key is determining whether your ESPP discount was included in your W2 compensation. If it wasn't (which sounds like your case), you have two options: **Option 1 (Conservative approach):** Report the discount as additional income on your tax return and adjust your cost basis upward on the 1099-B. This prevents double taxation but requires you to pay ordinary income tax on the discount amount. **Option 2 (Aggressive approach):** Some tax professionals argue that if the employer didn't report it, you don't need to either, and you can use the 1099-B as-is. However, this could potentially trigger issues if the IRS decides the discount should have been reported as income. Given that you sold at a loss, Option 1 might actually work better for you - you'll get to deduct a larger capital loss (due to the higher adjusted basis) while paying ordinary income tax on the discount amount. The net effect could be beneficial depending on your tax situation. I'd recommend documenting everything carefully and consider getting professional advice since ESPP tax rules can be tricky and the stakes get higher with larger transactions.

I sometimes see people using Cost of Goods Sold vs Expenses incorrectly on their Schedule C. For your situation: COGS typically includes: - Materials that become part of your finished product (PCBs, components, packaging) - Direct labor costs to produce items - Factory overhead directly related to production Regular expenses include: - Equipment (either depreciated or expensed via Section 179) - Supplies used in your business but not part of final product (cleaning supplies) - Utilities, rent, etc. The distinction matters because COGS directly reduces your gross receipts, while other expenses are deducted after calculating gross profit.

Great discussion here! I've been running a small electronics business for about 2 years and went through this exact same confusion. One thing I'd add that really helped me was setting up separate tracking from day one for each category. What I do now is use different colored folders/envelopes for receipts: - Blue for direct materials (components, solder, packaging that goes to customers) - Green for consumable supplies (cleaning materials, gloves, etc.) - Red for equipment purchases This makes it so much easier when tax season comes around. I also photograph every receipt immediately with my phone as backup since thermal receipts fade over time. One mistake I made early on was mixing personal and business purchases on the same receipt. Now I always do separate transactions - it saves headaches later when trying to figure out what portion was actually business-related. The equipment depreciation vs immediate expensing decision really depends on your cash flow situation too. If you're profitable this year, Section 179 can save you money now. If you're barely breaking even, spreading it out with depreciation might be better for future years when you're more profitable.