


Ask the community...
I'm in a similar situation - filed 11 days ago and still waiting for my verification letter. The uncertainty is definitely stressful when you're expecting your refund! From everything I've read here, it sounds like 10-14 business days is the normal timeframe, but mail delays can definitely push it longer. I've been checking my mailbox obsessively too. One thing that's helped ease my anxiety is remembering that this verification process is actually a good thing - it means the IRS is working to protect us from identity theft and fraud. Even though it's frustrating to wait, it's better than having someone else file a fraudulent return in our name. I'm going to take the advice from others here and wait the full 14 business days before requesting a resend. And definitely signing up for USPS Informed Delivery so I can at least see what's coming in the mail each day instead of just wondering. Thanks to everyone who shared their experiences and timelines - it really helps to know we're not alone in this process!
That's such a great perspective about the verification being for our protection! I've been so focused on the delay and frustration that I hadn't really thought about it that way. You're absolutely right - better to have this safeguard than deal with identity theft issues later. I'm also going to sign up for that USPS Informed Delivery - seems like such a simple way to reduce some of the daily anxiety of wondering if today's the day the letter arrives. Thanks for the reminder to stay patient and see this as a positive security measure rather than just an annoying roadblock!
I'm dealing with this exact same situation right now! Filed my return 9 days ago and got flagged for verification. The waiting is definitely nerve-wracking, especially when you're counting on that refund. From reading everyone's experiences here, it sounds like the 10-14 business day timeframe is pretty standard, though mail delays can definitely extend it. I've been checking my mailbox every day hoping to see that IRS envelope! One thing I'm going to do based on the suggestions here is set up USPS Informed Delivery so I can at least see what's coming each day instead of just wondering. And I'll definitely wait the full 14 days before requesting a resend since the system won't process it earlier anyway. It's actually somewhat comforting to know this is such a common experience and that so many people have successfully gotten through the verification process. The anxiety of not knowing what's happening with your return is real, but it sounds like patience is really the key here. Thanks to everyone for sharing their timelines and experiences - it really helps to know we're all in this together!
Has anyone run into issues with cost basis reporting on UTMA accounts? My son's 1099-B has some transactions marked as "basis not reported to IRS" and I'm not sure if I should be calculating the basis myself or if TurboTax handles this differently when using Form 8814.
I had the same issue last year. For transactions where basis isn't reported to the IRS, you'll need to enter the cost basis manually whether you're filing separately or using Form 8814. The UTMA custodian should have records of the original purchase prices, but if not, you'll need to contact the brokerage for historical purchase information. TurboTax has a section where you can enter this missing information.
I went through this exact same situation last year with my two kids' UTMA accounts. You're absolutely correct to be concerned about double taxation - it's a common pitfall that TurboTax doesn't automatically prevent. Here's what you need to do: Delete the UTMA 1099-Bs from your main tax return since you'll be reporting that income through Form 8814. When you complete Form 8814, TurboTax will ask you to enter the investment income information separately, and that's where you'll input the details from those UTMA 1099-Bs. One important thing to verify first - make sure your kids are still eligible for Form 8814. They need to be under 18 (or under 24 if full-time students), and their investment income must be under $11,000. If they had any capital gains over $2,200, be aware that portion will be taxed at your higher tax rate due to the kiddie tax rules. I'd also recommend double-checking the cost basis information on those 1099-Bs. UTMA accounts sometimes have transactions where the basis isn't reported to the IRS, and you'll need to have that information ready when completing Form 8814. The good news is that using Form 8814 often results in lower overall taxes compared to filing separate returns for the kids, especially if your children's investment income is modest. Just make sure you don't accidentally report the same income twice!
This is exactly the comprehensive guidance I was looking for! Thank you for breaking down all the key points. I just double-checked and both my kids are 16 and 14, so definitely eligible for Form 8814. Their combined investment income is around $4,500, so well under the $11,000 limit. I'm particularly glad you mentioned the cost basis issue - I just looked at their 1099-Bs and sure enough, several transactions show "basis not reported to IRS." I have the original purchase records from when I set up the UTMAs, so I should be able to handle that part. One follow-up question: when I delete those UTMA 1099-Bs from my main return, will TurboTax give me any warnings about "missing" forms that were imported? I want to make sure I'm not accidentally overlooking something important when I remove them.
Just wanted to add another perspective on this issue. I've been dealing with partnership returns for about 8 years now, and this Box 14c confusion comes up every single year. What I've learned is that you really need to be careful about the distinction between limited and general partners, especially when it comes to self-employment tax implications. One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that you should also double-check your partnership agreement to make sure the limited partners are truly limited partners under state law and not just called "limited partners" in name only. Sometimes partnerships have members who are designated as limited partners but actually participate in management activities, which could affect their tax treatment. Also, when you make those manual K-1 adjustments for the limited partners, make sure you're keeping good documentation of the changes you made and why. The IRS has been paying more attention to partnership returns lately, and having clear records of your reasoning will be helpful if you ever get questioned about it.
This is such a helpful point about verifying the actual legal status of limited partners versus just their designation in the partnership documents. I hadn't considered that some "limited partners" might actually be participating in management activities which could change their tax treatment. For someone new to partnership returns like me, how would you recommend verifying this? Should I be looking at specific language in the partnership agreement, or are there particular activities that would automatically disqualify someone from limited partner status? I want to make sure I'm not missing anything that could cause problems later. Also, your point about documentation is well taken - I'll make sure to keep detailed notes about any manual adjustments I make to the K-1s this year. Better safe than sorry with partnership returns!
Great question about verifying limited partner status! You'll want to look at both the partnership agreement and actual activities. Key things to check in the agreement: does it explicitly limit the partner's management rights, voting rights, and day-to-day business participation? Red flags for "limited in name only" include partners who sign contracts, hire/fire employees, make major business decisions, or have broad management authority. The safest approach is to review what each partner actually does versus what the agreement says they can do. If there's any ambiguity, consider consulting with an attorney familiar with your state's partnership laws since the rules can vary by jurisdiction. For documentation, I keep a simple spreadsheet showing: partner name, designation (general/limited), basis for classification, any manual K-1 adjustments made, and the tax code section supporting the treatment. Takes 10 minutes to set up but saves hours if you ever need to explain your decisions to the IRS or a reviewer.
This spreadsheet approach is brilliant! I've been handling partnership returns for a few years but never thought to create a systematic documentation method like this. Your suggestion about tracking the basis for classification and supporting tax code sections is especially helpful - I can see how that would save so much time during reviews or if questions come up later. One follow-up question: when you mention reviewing what partners actually do versus what the agreement allows, how do you typically gather that information? Do you send questionnaires to the partners, or is this something you discuss during client meetings? I want to make sure I'm being thorough but also efficient in how I collect this information from clients. Also, for the tax code section references in your spreadsheet, are you primarily citing IRC Section 469 for the passive activity rules, or are there other key sections you typically reference for limited partner determinations?
One detail no one has mentioned yet: Coverdell ESAs have an annual contribution limit of $2,000 per beneficiary. If your CD is maturing and you want to add more money beyond just reinvesting the existing balance, that $2,000 annual limit will apply. 529 plans, on the other hand, have much higher contribution limits - technically up to the projected cost of education in your state, which is usually $300,000+ per beneficiary. So if you're planning to add more funds for future education expenses, the 529 might give you more flexibility there. Also worth noting that Coverdell contribution eligibility phases out based on your income (starts phasing out at $190,000 for joint filers), while 529s have no income limitations.
Also, another important difference is the age limit! Coverdell funds must be used by the time the beneficiary turns 30, or they'll be subject to taxes and penalties. 529 plans don't have any age limit, which gives you more flexibility if your kid decides to go to grad school later or takes a gap year.
Another consideration that hasn't been mentioned is state tax benefits. Many states offer tax deductions or credits for contributions to their 529 plans, but not for Coverdell ESAs. Since you're looking at potentially rolling over $7,200, you should check if your state offers any tax incentives for 529 contributions. For example, some states allow you to deduct up to $10,000 or more annually from your state taxes for 529 contributions. Even though this would be a rollover rather than a new contribution, some states still allow the deduction. This could provide immediate tax savings that might outweigh keeping the money in the Coverdell. Also, since your son is in 10th grade, you have time to take advantage of multiple years of potential state tax benefits if you do decide to make additional contributions to a 529 plan after the rollover.
Evelyn Rivera
Does anyone know if I can still do this recharacterization thing for my 2024 contribution? I contributed to a Roth earlier this year but just realized my income will be too high.
0 coins
Julia Hall
ā¢Yes, you can recharacterize a 2024 Roth contribution to Traditional until the tax filing deadline in 2025 (including extensions). So you have plenty of time. I'd recommend doing it sooner rather than later though, because any earnings that accumulate will also be moved over, and that can complicate the tax calculations.
0 coins
Ava Martinez
Just wanted to add another perspective on this situation. I had a very similar mess with my 2023 Roth contribution and recharacterization timing, and what really helped me was understanding that the IRS treats the recharacterization as if you had made the correct choice from the beginning. The key insight that wasn't immediately obvious to me: when you recharacterize in 2024 for a 2023 contribution, you're not making a new 2024 contribution - you're retroactively changing what type of contribution you made in 2023. This is why your 2024 Roth contribution is completely separate and valid. Make sure when you're entering the 1099-R information in your tax software that you're categorizing it correctly. The recharacterization 1099-R should be coded as "N" and the conversion should be coded as "2". If your software is still showing over-contribution after entering these correctly, you may need to manually override the calculation or seek help from a tax professional who understands backdoor Roth conversions. Also double-check that your custodian reported everything with the correct tax year designations on the 1099-Rs. Sometimes they get confused about which year a recharacterized contribution should be attributed to.
0 coins
GalaxyGlider
ā¢This is really helpful clarification! I'm dealing with something similar and was panicking about the over-contribution warnings in my tax software. Just to make sure I understand - when the 1099-R shows the recharacterization with code N, I should enter that but NOT count it as a new contribution for 2024 limits, right? And @Ava Martinez, when you mention "manually override the calculation" - did you have to do that in your tax software, or did entering the codes correctly make it calculate properly? I'm using TurboTax and it's still showing I'm over the limit even after entering all the 1099-R information.
0 coins