lol welcome to the wonderful world of taxes where nothing makes sense and everything is a headache 🤪

I had this exact same issue with my 2019 transcript! What worked for me was looking at my old pay stubs if you still have them - they usually have the full company name and EIN number. You can also try searching the partial name + "EIN" on Google, sometimes that pulls up the full business info. Also, if you used any tax software like TurboTax or H&R Block that year, they might have saved your employer info in your account. Worth checking!

I've been dealing with this Kentucky refund delay too - filed on February 28th and still waiting. What's really frustrating is that I called their automated line yesterday and it now says they're processing returns filed in "early February" which means I probably have several more weeks to go. For anyone else in this situation, I found that you can sign up for email notifications on the Kentucky revenue website so you don't have to keep manually checking. At least that way you'll know immediately when your status changes instead of obsessively refreshing the page like I've been doing. Has anyone had luck with the Taxpayer Service Portal that @Natasha Petrova mentioned? I'm willing to try anything at this point to speed this up.

I'm experiencing the exact same delays - filed my KY return on March 2nd and still waiting. What's particularly frustrating is that I'm a tax preparer and have clients asking me daily about their Kentucky refunds while I can't even get my own processed. The timing of this system upgrade is absolutely baffling from a business perspective. Every other state manages to do major system maintenance during the off-season (May-December). Kentucky decided to do it right in the middle of tax season when they're processing the highest volume of returns. It's like deciding to renovate a restaurant kitchen during the dinner rush. I've been advising my clients to expect 8-10 weeks minimum based on what I'm seeing, even though the official estimate is still 6 weeks. Better to set realistic expectations than have people calling constantly. The whole situation has been a nightmare for tax professionals trying to manage client expectations.

Just FYI - I'm an accountant who works with many university professors. The standard practice we recommend is: 1. Recurring consultant/reviewer work = Schedule C (yes, with SE tax) 2. One-time honorarium type payments = Schedule 1 as Other Income The $175 your preparer charged to do a Schedule C for a $250 payment seems excessive, especially since it likely increased your tax liability through SE tax. Might be worth shopping around for a preparer who understands academic income better next year!

As someone who's been in academia for years and dealt with this exact situation multiple times, I can add some perspective. The key distinction the IRS makes isn't just about the dollar amount - it's about whether you're engaged in a "trade or business." For grant reviewing, if you're actively seeking out these opportunities, have expertise that organizations regularly pay for, and do this type of work more than occasionally, it's likely considered self-employment income requiring Schedule C. However, if NSF approached you for a one-time review based on your academic expertise and this isn't something you regularly do or advertise, there's a reasonable argument for Schedule 1. The $175 fee your preparer charged does seem steep for such a small amount. Many preparers who work with academics would have at least discussed both options with you. For future reference, you might want to find someone who specializes in academic tax situations - we have unique income streams that general preparers don't always handle optimally. One thing to keep in mind: even without a 1099, you're still required to report this income. The IRS can potentially match payments from federal agencies like NSF even without formal reporting documents.

Did anyone else run into issues with QBI (qualified business income) deduction when using bonus depreciation? I took bonus depreciation two years ago and it reduced my QBI deduction a lot because it lowered my business income.

Another consideration that hasn't been mentioned yet is the potential impact on loan covenants if you have business debt. Some lenders require maintaining certain debt-to-income ratios or minimum cash flow levels. Taking bonus depreciation can significantly reduce your reported business income in the first year, which might put you at risk of violating loan agreements. I learned this the hard way when my bank called me about potentially being in breach of our equipment loan covenant after I took bonus depreciation on some manufacturing equipment. Fortunately, they worked with us and we were able to amend the agreement, but it created some unnecessary stress and paperwork. If you have business loans, definitely check your loan documents or talk to your lender before making the bonus depreciation election. You might need to provide tax vs. book depreciation schedules to show your "real" cash flow versus what appears on your tax return.

Just wondering... did you ever ask the partnership itself for an explanation? When I was in a similar situation, I emailed our partnership's accountant directly and they sent me a detailed breakdown of how my K-1 was calculated and why the distributions were different from my share of income. Sometimes going directly to the source is the fastest way to understand what's happening.

Your CPA is correct - you need to report the $24,863 from Line 1 on your Schedule E. This is a classic partnership taxation issue where your share of profits (11.53%) differs from your distribution percentage (3.06%). The key thing to understand is that partnerships are "pass-through" entities, meaning you're taxed on your allocated share of the partnership's income whether you receive it in cash or not. The partnership agreement clearly established different percentages for profit allocation versus distributions (likely due to that IRA loan conversion you mentioned). Think of it this way: the partnership earned income, and 11.53% of that income is legally "yours" for tax purposes even though the distribution formula gives you a smaller cash payout. The $17,012 difference between your taxable income and distribution is essentially being retained by the partnership, increasing your basis in the partnership. This might feel unfair since you're paying tax on money you didn't receive, but it's completely legal and common in partnership structures with special allocations. Your business partner may not fully understand the tax implications of the partnership agreement that was set up. I'd stick with your CPA's advice on this one - reporting only the distribution amount would likely trigger IRS issues down the road.