This has been absolutely fascinating to follow! As someone new to this community, I'm genuinely impressed by the depth of knowledge and collaborative spirit everyone has shown in tackling such a unique situation. What strikes me most is how this discussion has evolved from a straightforward tax question into a comprehensive analysis covering tax law, Social Security implications, ADA compliance, retirement planning, and disability advocacy. The collective expertise here - from CPAs to payroll professionals to disability advocates - has created what's essentially a complete guide for handling one of the rarest tax situations imaginable. I'm particularly impressed by the practical roadmap that's emerged: filing separate returns this year with detailed explanations, leveraging ADA compliance for employer accommodations, securing official IRS guidance, and thinking strategically about long-term financial implications. The emphasis on thorough documentation and establishing consistent precedents shows real foresight. The point about reframing employer discussions as ADA compliance rather than requests for favors is brilliant - it completely changes the legal dynamics and ensures they get the accommodations they're entitled to. And discovering potential advantages like doubled retirement contribution limits really shows how unusual circumstances can sometimes offer unexpected opportunities when handled properly. Your cousin's friend is incredibly fortunate to have someone advocating for them and seeking out this level of comprehensive advice. This thread should honestly be preserved as a resource for other conjoined twins or tax professionals who might encounter similar situations in the future. The care and expertise demonstrated here is truly remarkable!

This has been absolutely incredible to read through! As someone who works in HR at a mid-sized company, I wanted to add a perspective on the employer side of this situation that might be helpful. From an HR standpoint, the ADA compliance angle that Marcus mentioned is spot-on and could be the key to getting the necessary accommodations. When approaching their employer, your cousin's friend should frame this as ensuring equal access to benefits and Social Security credits - which is exactly what reasonable accommodations are designed to provide. Most modern payroll systems can actually handle income splitting fairly easily - we've done it for job-sharing arrangements and court-ordered garnishments. The real challenge is usually getting the decision-makers to understand why it's necessary and legally appropriate. Having medical documentation and framing it as ADA compliance rather than a special favor makes all the difference. I'd also suggest they request this accommodation in writing and ask for a written response. This creates a paper trail that protects everyone and ensures there's documentation if questions arise later. If the employer initially pushes back, mentioning that they're willing to involve disability advocacy organizations often helps clarify how seriously they take the legal compliance aspect. The Social Security credits issue that Freya raised is particularly important - if only one SSN gets credit for the work, the other twin could face serious problems with retirement and disability benefits decades down the line. That's exactly the kind of long-term impact that ADA accommodations are meant to prevent.

I feel for you - this exact thing happened to my sister a couple years ago and it was such a stressful surprise! One thing that might help ease your mind a bit: even though amended returns take longer to process (usually 16+ weeks), the IRS will often still issue your original refund while they're processing the amendment. So you might not have to wait months for all your money. Also, definitely look into that insolvency exclusion others mentioned. My sister ended up qualifying and it made a huge difference. She had to dig up old records but it was worth it - saved her thousands in taxes she thought she'd owe. The most important thing is to file that amendment though. The IRS will definitely catch the discrepancy eventually since they get a copy of every 1099-C that's issued. Better to be proactive about it than deal with penalties and interest later!

I'm so sorry you're dealing with this stress! As someone who works in tax preparation, I see this situation more often than you'd think. The timing is absolutely terrible, but you're definitely doing the right thing by addressing it head-on. A few practical points that might help ease your anxiety: 1. The IRS typically processes your original refund first, then handles the amendment separately. So you likely won't have to wait the full 16+ weeks for your refund money. 2. That 12-year timeline actually works in your favor for the insolvency exclusion. If your wife was struggling financially back then (which might be why the debt went unpaid), there's a good chance she qualifies. 3. Moving up a tax bracket isn't as painful as it seems - only the income above the bracket threshold gets taxed at the higher rate, not your entire income. For documentation, start with what you have: old tax returns from that year can help establish income levels, and you can request old credit reports to help reconstruct her debt situation. Even incomplete records are better than nothing. The amendment process isn't fun, but it's definitely manageable. You've got this!

I've been successfully claiming TTS for 3 years while working a full-time engineering job, so your situation is definitely possible! The key insight many people miss is that the IRS cares more about the *nature* of your trading activity than whether it's your only job. Your numbers look strong - 15-20 trades weekly and 4-5 hours daily puts you well within the range courts have accepted. I was doing similar volume (18-22 trades/week) when I first qualified. A few things that really helped my case: - I created a simple but formal "trading business plan" outlining my strategies, risk management, and profit goals - Kept a daily log in Excel tracking hours spent on research, analysis, and execution - Set up a separate LLC for my trading business (not required but shows business intent) - Used QuickBooks to track all trading-related expenses The income factor you mentioned actually strengthens your case significantly. When your trading generates more income than your regular job, it demonstrates this isn't just a hobby or casual investment activity. One warning though - be prepared for potential pushback from tax preparers who aren't familiar with TTS rules. I went through three CPAs before finding one who understood that part-time employment doesn't disqualify you. Many incorrectly think you need to be trading "full-time" but that's not what the tax code or court cases require. The mark-to-market benefits alone saved me over $12K last year by eliminating the capital loss limitations. Definitely worth pursuing if you have the documentation to support it!

Your situation sounds very promising for TTS qualification! As someone who successfully navigated this process while working another job, I can tell you that having part-time employment doesn't disqualify you at all. The IRS focuses on four main factors: frequency of trades, regularity of activity, holding periods, and your intent to profit from short-term market movements. Your 15-20 weekly trades and 4-5 hours daily commitment clearly demonstrate substantial trading activity. The fact that your trading income exceeds your part-time job income is actually a strong indicator that this is a legitimate business operation, not just casual investing. Here's what I'd recommend to strengthen your position: **Documentation is everything** - Start keeping detailed time logs of all trading-related activities (research, analysis, execution, record-keeping). I use a simple spreadsheet with date, time spent, and activity description. **Separate your trading business** - Use dedicated equipment, workspace, and accounts for trading. This creates clear separation from your employment and supports home office deductions. **Formalize your approach** - Write down your trading strategies, risk management rules, and business plan. This doesn't need to be fancy, but shows you're operating as a business rather than gambling. **Mark-to-market timing** - If you want MTM accounting for 2024, you need to make that Section 475(f) election by your 2024 tax filing deadline. Don't miss this if you want to eliminate the $3K capital loss limitation. The biggest challenge will be finding a tax professional who understands TTS rules. Many CPAs incorrectly think you need to trade "full-time" but that's nowhere in the tax code. Consider consulting with someone who specializes in trader taxation - the potential tax savings easily justify the professional fees. You're in a great position to claim TTS. Just make sure you have the documentation to back it up!

This is an incredibly comprehensive thread with so much useful information! I'm actually dealing with a similar situation with my former employer not providing proper access to my ADP account, and I'm blown away by how many different avenues there are to address this. The combination of advice from @ac0944eb9a44 (state labor department perspective), @764e0abb033b (HR professional insight), and everyone else's personal experiences has given me a complete roadmap for handling this type of situation. I had no idea about resources like the ADP Employee Access Resolution Team or the state AG consumer protection angle. One thing that really stands out is how consistently everyone recommends the multi-agency approach rather than trying one avenue at a time. It makes perfect sense that employers who might ignore individual complaints suddenly become very cooperative when they're getting official letters from the IRS, state labor board, AND attorney general's office simultaneously. @e943c7b7d99f - I hope you get this resolved quickly! Based on everything shared here, it sounds like your former employer is about to learn that stonewalling employees on basic legal obligations has serious consequences. The fact that multiple government enforcement professionals have weighed in saying this is a clear violation should give you confidence that you're absolutely in the right here. Thanks to everyone who shared their experiences - this thread is going to help a lot of people dealing with similar employment document issues!

This thread has been incredibly comprehensive and helpful! As someone who handles small business payroll, I wanted to add one more resource that might help in situations like this. Many states have a specific "Wage and Hour Division" within their Department of Labor that handles payroll record access violations separately from general labor complaints. These divisions often have expedited processes for document access issues since they affect people's ability to file taxes on time. Also, if you're dealing with ADP specifically, there's actually a little-known federal reporting requirement that might work in your favor. ADP has to maintain certain employee records for federal compliance even after employment ends, and they can sometimes be compelled to provide access through Department of Labor intervention when employers are unresponsive. One last tip from my experience: when you send that certified mail demand letter, include specific language about "violation of state personnel records access laws" and mention that you'll be seeking recovery of costs associated with obtaining these documents through alternative means. Many states allow former employees to recover reasonable costs (like fees for requesting transcripts from IRS) when employers fail to provide required access to payroll records. Your former employer is clearly hoping you'll just give up, but with all the resources outlined in this thread, you have multiple strong avenues to get this resolved quickly. Don't let them wear you down - you have solid legal rights here!

Has anyone considered the W-2 wage limitation for QBI? Since OP is in the 24% bracket with joint income, they might face QBI limitations if they don't have sufficient W-2 wages. The deduction could be limited to 50% of W-2 wages paid by the business. Also for 2023, did you take any money out of the business? If so, the IRS might reclassify those as constructive dividends which wouldn't qualify for QBI. The cleanest solution might be filing an amended S-corp return showing reasonable compensation.

You're in a tricky spot, but it's not insurmountable. Since you didn't run payroll in 2023, you'll need to address this compliance issue head-on with your accountant. The IRS expects S-corp owner-employees to receive reasonable compensation through W-2 wages before taking distributions. Without proper payroll, you risk having all $71.5k treated as wages subject to employment taxes, which would eliminate the S-corp tax advantages. For QBI, the deduction applies to the business income AFTER reasonable compensation is paid. So if you can establish that $49k salary retroactively (through amended returns or other corrective measures your CPA recommends), the remaining income could potentially qualify for QBI. One silver lining: since your combined income keeps you in the 24% bracket, you're below the taxable income thresholds where QBI gets limited by W-2 wages or depreciable property. This means if you can properly separate salary from business income, you should get the full 20% QBI deduction on the qualifying portion. Document everything about your reasonable compensation analysis - industry standards, time spent, responsibilities, etc. This will be crucial for your accountant to determine the best path forward, whether that's amended returns, late payroll filings, or other compliance solutions.