This entire discussion has been incredibly valuable! As someone who's been practicing tax law for about 7 years now, I wanted to add one more perspective that might help seal the decision for you. The debt-free advantage you're describing is absolutely massive and shouldn't be underestimated. I graduated with significant student loans and it really did constrain my early career choices. I had to prioritize salary over experience opportunities, which meant missing out on some rotations and specialty areas that would have been beneficial long-term. What strikes me most about your situation is that you're getting the best of both worlds - a solid technical foundation that differentiates you in the market, plus the financial freedom to be strategic about your career development. That's incredibly rare and valuable. One thing I haven't seen mentioned much is how the accounting background helps with business development later in your career. Clients trust attorneys who understand their business challenges from both legal and financial perspectives. I've seen partners with accounting backgrounds develop incredibly strong client relationships because they can speak to the full business impact of tax strategies, not just the legal compliance aspects. The LLM route will always be there if you decide you need it later, but you can't go back and redo your financial situation. Starting your career debt-free with a differentiated skill set seems like the obvious choice here. The market is clearly moving toward valuing practical, interdisciplinary expertise over traditional prestige markers. You sound like you've done your research and have genuine passion for tax law - that passion combined with technical competence and financial flexibility is a recipe for success regardless of which specific credentials you pursue.

As someone who's been working in federal tax compliance for over a decade, I can tell you that the landscape has definitely shifted toward valuing practical, cross-disciplinary expertise. Your situation with minimal debt and access to a quality JD/MAcc program is genuinely enviable. From my experience working with both attorneys and CPAs on complex compliance matters, the professionals who can bridge both worlds are incredibly valuable. Just last month, we had a case involving a multinational corporation's restructuring where the attorney with accounting background was able to spot potential issues that pure legal analysis would have missed. Understanding the book-tax differences and their implications for both compliance and business strategy made all the difference in the outcome. The IRS has also been increasing its focus on the intersection of tax law and financial reporting, especially with recent initiatives around corporate transparency and international information reporting. Professionals who understand both sides of these issues are in high demand. Your instinct about the debt advantage is absolutely correct. I've watched too many talented attorneys get locked into positions they didn't love just to service student loans. Starting your career with financial freedom gives you the luxury of being strategic about experience and specialization rather than just chasing the highest immediate paycheck. The networking aspect that LLM programs provide can definitely be replicated through professional organizations and intentional relationship building. The technical skills differential, however, is much harder to develop later in your career if you don't build that foundation now. Given your clear passion for tax law and your unique financial situation, the JD/MAcc + CPA route seems like the obvious strategic choice. You'll graduate with a differentiated skill set that's genuinely valued in the current market.

This is a really common confusion! The key thing to understand is that with Traditional IRAs, you should only pay tax ONCE - either when you contribute OR when you withdraw, not both. If you're eligible to deduct your Traditional IRA contributions (which depends on your income and whether you have a workplace retirement plan), then you claim those deductions on your tax return. This essentially gives you back the taxes you already paid on that money from your paycheck. However, if your income is too high to deduct the contributions, then you're making "non-deductible" contributions with after-tax money. In this case, you need to file Form 8606 to track your "basis" - the amount you've already paid taxes on. When you withdraw in retirement, only the earnings portion gets taxed, not the contributions you already paid tax on. The bottom line: Check if you qualify for the deduction first. If yes, claim it and avoid double taxation. If no, file Form 8606 to protect yourself from double taxation later. Either way, you shouldn't be paying tax twice on the same money!

Great question Diego! You're definitely not alone in this confusion - it's one of the most common Traditional IRA misconceptions. The good news is that you should NOT be getting double-taxed if you handle things correctly. Here's what you need to do: Check if you're eligible to deduct your Traditional IRA contributions on your tax return. If you can deduct them (based on your income and whether you have a workplace retirement plan), then you'll get back the taxes you already paid on that money through your paycheck. Then when you withdraw in retirement, you'll pay taxes once - which is the correct way it should work. If your income is too high to qualify for the deduction, then you're making "non-deductible" contributions with after-tax dollars. In this case, you MUST file Form 8606 each year to track your "basis" (the money you've already paid taxes on). This form creates a paper trail so that when you retire and withdraw, you only pay taxes on the earnings, not on the contributions you already paid taxes on. The key takeaway: You should only ever pay taxes ONCE on the same money - either going in OR coming out, never both. Make sure you're either claiming the deduction or filing Form 8606 to protect yourself!

For anyone dealing with this situation, I'd recommend downloading IRS Publication 1494 "The IRS Collection Process" and keeping it handy. It's free on the IRS website and explains exactly how different types of levies work. Section 3 specifically covers Notice of Levy (Form 668-A) and confirms what others have said about it being a one-time seizure of property you have on hand. What really helped me when I dealt with this was creating a timeline showing: (1) when I received the notice, (2) exactly what funds I had for that vendor at that moment, and (3) when I sent the payment. This documentation proved invaluable when our auditor reviewed our files later. One thing to watch out for: make sure you're only withholding funds that actually belong to the taxpayer named in the levy. If you have payments due to a different legal entity (like their LLC vs. personal name), those might not be subject to the levy depending on how it's written.

Just wanted to add something that helped me when I dealt with a similar Notice of Levy situation - make sure you understand the "property in possession" concept clearly. The IRS defines this as money or property that you currently hold that belongs to the taxpayer at the time you receive the levy notice. In my case, we had already cut a check to the vendor but hadn't mailed it yet when we received the 668-A. Our attorney advised that since the check was still in our possession, those funds were subject to the levy. But payments we made after sending in the levy amount were not subject to withholding. Also, keep in mind that interest and penalties can continue to accrue on the taxpayer's debt even after you send in what you withheld. This doesn't affect your obligations, but it's why the vendor should contact the IRS directly to resolve their underlying tax issue rather than just waiting for the levy to be satisfied. One last tip: if you're ever unsure about compliance, err on the side of caution and document everything. The IRS is much more forgiving of businesses that clearly attempted to comply in good faith, even if they made minor procedural errors, than those who ignored the levy entirely.

One thing I'd add to all the great advice here - make sure you're tracking your "basis" in the S Corp properly. When you leave profits in the business like that $135k, it increases your basis in the company. This becomes important later if you ever take out more than the accumulated earnings or if you sell the business. Your basis starts with what you initially invested in the company, then increases with your share of profits (even if left in the business) and decreases with distributions you actually take. Keeping good records of this will save you headaches down the road, especially if you ever need to take large distributions or loans from the company. Most people don't think about basis tracking until they need it, but it's much easier to maintain these records as you go rather than trying to reconstruct them years later.

One more consideration that might be relevant - if you're planning to keep that $135k in the business for a while, make sure you're at least earning some interest on it. Since you'll be paying taxes on those profits this year regardless, you might as well put that money to work in a high-yield business savings account or short-term CDs. Also, don't forget that keeping cash reserves in the business can actually be smart for cash flow management and unexpected expenses. Just make sure your "reasonable salary" is truly reasonable for your industry and role - the IRS scrutinizes S Corps where owners take very low salaries but leave large amounts as retained earnings, since it can look like you're trying to avoid payroll taxes. The good news is that S Corp taxation is generally more straightforward than people think once you understand the pass-through concept. You're essentially paying individual tax rates on business profits, but you get to avoid the double taxation that C Corps face.

I'm going through the exact same thing right now! Filed my 2020 and 2021 returns together back in February, got my 2021 refund in April, but I'm still waiting on my 2020 return. It's been over 4 months and I was getting really worried until I read all these responses. It's actually really comforting to know that so many people are experiencing the same delays with prior year returns. I had no idea the IRS processes older returns through completely different systems that are so much slower. The Where's My Refund tool has been useless - just says "processing" for months with no updates. Reading about everyone's similar experiences here makes me feel so much better about the wait. Sounds like 6+ months is pretty standard for these older returns, so I'll try to be more patient!

I'm dealing with almost the exact same situation! Filed my 2020 and 2021 returns together in February, got my 2021 refund in about 6 weeks, but I'm still waiting on my 2020 return after 4+ months. It's been really stressful not knowing what's happening, especially since the IRS website just keeps saying "processing" with no timeline. Reading through all these responses has been such a relief - I had no idea that prior year returns go through completely different processing systems and take so much longer! The explanation about automated vs manual processing makes perfect sense. It's actually really comforting to know so many people are experiencing these same delays and that it's completely normal. I was starting to worry my return got lost or there was some major issue. Thanks for posting this question - it's exactly what I needed to hear to stop panicking about the wait!