I had a similar experience with ID.me's invasive requirements. What worked for me was using the IRS Direct Authentication method that others mentioned. The key thing to know is that you'll need to have your financial information handy - they ask about previous addresses, loan amounts, and account details from your credit report. Make sure you have access to your most recent tax return too, as they sometimes reference information from it. The process is much more straightforward than ID.me's facial recognition circus, and you don't have to worry about uploading sensitive documents to a third party. Once you're verified, accessing your transcripts is instant and you can use them for whatever tax planning you need to do.

I completely understand your concerns about ID.me - their data practices have been questionable at best. I recently went through this same process and found that the IRS Direct Authentication method is definitely the way to go. Unlike ID.me, you're dealing directly with the IRS system, so there's no third-party data sharing involved. The verification process asks knowledge-based questions about your financial history, similar to what you mentioned with your banking verification. Make sure you have your previous tax returns handy and know details about any loans or credit accounts you've had. The whole process took me about 10 minutes, and I had immediate access to my transcripts without having to upload any photos or go through facial recognition. It's honestly what the IRS should have been using all along instead of forcing people through ID.me's invasive process.

I'm currently in the same exact situation and this thread has been incredibly helpful! I submitted my Form 8802 in early April and I'm about 3 months in now. After reading everyone's experiences, I'm mentally preparing for the 4-5 month timeline instead of hoping for the old 6-8 week processing time. What strikes me most is how consistent everyone's experiences are - the complete radio silence from the IRS, the anxiety about whether forms got lost, and then eventually receiving the certification with zero warning. It's both frustrating and oddly comforting to know this is just how the system works now. I'm definitely going to call that 267-941-1000 number when I hit the 4-month mark. Based on everyone's feedback, the brutal hold time seems worth it just to confirm my form is actually in their system. The not knowing is honestly the worst part of this whole process. Thanks to everyone for sharing their timelines and experiences - it really helps to know what to expect and that we're all going through the same bureaucratic delays. For anyone else waiting, hang in there! The consistency of these stories gives me confidence that our forms are working through the system, just very slowly.

I'm going through this exact same situation right now! Just submitted my Form 8802 in late March and I'm about 4 months in. Reading through everyone's experiences here has been incredibly reassuring - I had no idea that 4-5 months was the new normal processing time. The complete silence from the IRS really is the most frustrating part. You'd think they could send at least a basic acknowledgment email or update their website with realistic current timeframes instead of that useless COVID delay message that's been there forever. I'm definitely going to call 267-941-1000 next week when I hit the 4-month mark. Based on everyone's feedback here, sitting through the 2+ hour hold seems worth it just to confirm my form isn't lost in their system. The anxiety of not knowing is honestly worse than knowing you have a long wait ahead. This thread has been so helpful for managing expectations and knowing I'm not alone in this bureaucratic nightmare. Thanks to everyone for sharing their timelines - it gives me hope that March/April submissions should start coming through soon based on the patterns people are describing. Hang in there everyone!

I think another factor that might explain the discrepancy is the different ways states handle standard and itemized deductions for part-year residents. Many states prorate the standard deduction based on the portion of the year you were a resident. So if you lived in a state for 3 months, you might only get 3/12 of the standard deduction amount. For itemized deductions, some states require you to prorate all itemized deductions, while others allow you to claim the full amount of deductions for expenses like property taxes or mortgage interest on property located in that state, regardless of your residency period. Have you checked if your tax software is prorating your standard deduction correctly? That could account for some of the difference you're seeing.

This is a really complex situation that many people face when moving between states mid-year. From what you've described, there are several factors that could be causing the discrepancy between your calculations and TaxSlayer's results. First, Washington State actually doesn't have a personal income tax on wages, salaries, or most other types of income. Are you perhaps referring to a different state? If you meant a different state with income tax, that would explain the confusion. However, regarding the 529 distribution tax you mentioned - that's likely correct. Many states do impose taxes and penalties on non-qualified 529 withdrawals, and this is often overlooked when people do their own calculations. For Oregon, the difference you're seeing could be due to how they handle the various loss limitations. Oregon has specific rules about how much of your capital losses and rental losses can offset other income in the current tax year, and these limits might be stricter than federal rules or different from what you calculated. I'd recommend double-checking which state you actually lived in before Oregon (since Washington doesn't have income tax), and then reviewing both states' specific rules for part-year residents. The "taxation based on total annual income" method that others mentioned is definitely a key factor that catches many people off guard.

I'm dealing with a similar situation but with a twist - I received a 1099-NEC from a Canadian company AND they also sent me a T4A slip for the same income. Now I'm really confused about which form I should be using for my US taxes. Has anyone else encountered this double-reporting situation? The amounts are identical ($3,200 on both forms), but I'm worried about accidentally reporting the same income twice or using the wrong form entirely. The Canadian company told me they issue both forms "to cover all bases" for their US contractors, but that doesn't really help me figure out what to do on my end. Should I just use the 1099-NEC for my US return and ignore the T4A, or is there something more complex I need to consider here?

I've been following this thread with interest since I had a nearly identical situation last year. My wife received a 1099-NEC from a Toronto-based marketing firm for about $3,100 in consulting fees. After reading all the advice here, I want to emphasize what several people mentioned - the simplest and safest approach is to report this on Schedule C as self-employment income without trying to force the 1099-NEC form into tax software that can't handle the Canadian address. One additional tip that helped us: We included a brief note with our return stating "1099-NEC income from Canadian company reported on Schedule C due to software limitations with foreign addresses." Our tax preparer suggested this would help if the IRS ever had questions about the reporting method. The income is definitely subject to self-employment tax regardless of the source being Canadian. We learned this the hard way when we initially tried to report it as "Other Income" and got a notice from the IRS later requiring us to pay the additional SE tax. Also, keep good records of any business expenses related to this work - things like phone calls, internet costs, or materials used for the Canadian client. These can be deducted on Schedule C to reduce your taxable income from this source.

I'm dealing with a very similar situation right now - received a 1099-R with code "1" for what should clearly be a QDRO distribution. Reading through everyone's experiences here has been incredibly reassuring, especially seeing that multiple people have successfully resolved this using Form 5329 with exception code "6". My ex-spouse's plan administrator has been completely unhelpful about issuing a corrected form, claiming they "don't have the authority" to change distribution codes even when presented with the court-approved QDRO. It's frustrating that they can process the distribution under the QDRO but then can't code it properly on the tax form. Based on all the advice shared here, I'm going to stop wasting time trying to get a corrected 1099-R and just file correctly using Form 5329. I'll include a brief explanatory statement referencing my QDRO as several of you have suggested. It's reassuring to know that the IRS systems can handle this correction properly even when the plan administrators can't get their coding right in the first place. Thanks to everyone who shared their experiences - this thread has been more helpful than hours of searching IRS publications!

I wanted to add another perspective to this discussion since I work in retirement plan administration and see these QDRO distribution coding issues frequently. The root problem is that many plan recordkeepers have automated systems that default to code "1" for any distribution from someone under 59½, without properly accounting for QDRO exceptions. What's particularly frustrating is that the same system that processes and approves the QDRO distribution often fails to communicate with the tax reporting module to ensure proper coding. This creates the exact situation many of you have described - a legitimate QDRO distribution that gets incorrectly coded on the 1099-R. From an administrative standpoint, I always recommend that participants request written confirmation from their plan administrator that the distribution qualifies as a QDRO distribution before the money is distributed. This creates a paper trail that can be helpful if coding issues arise later. However, as everyone here has demonstrated, even incorrect coding can be resolved through proper filing with Form 5329. For anyone still dealing with unresponsive plan administrators, you might also try escalating to the plan sponsor (the employer) rather than just the recordkeeper. Sometimes the HR department can apply pressure to get corrected forms issued more quickly than individual participants can.