Just to add one thing - if your SUV has a gross vehicle weight rating over 6,000 pounds, it might qualify for additional Section 179 deduction if you use actual expenses method. Worth checking the weight specs because it could make a BIG difference in year 1.

Great question! I went through a similar situation last year with my 2018 pickup truck. One thing that really helped me was creating a spreadsheet to compare both methods using my actual numbers. For a $26,000 SUV with 60% business use, the math can go either way depending on your annual mileage and maintenance costs. Since you're using it for the first time in 2025, you're smart to go with standard mileage to preserve your options. The standard mileage rate for 2025 is 67 cents per mile, so if you drive 15,000 business miles, that's $10,050 in deductions right there. One tip: definitely track your actual expenses this year too (gas, maintenance, insurance, etc.) even though you're using standard mileage. That way next year you can compare and see if switching to actual expenses makes sense, especially once your SUV starts needing more maintenance. And yes, you can absolutely deduct the prorated registration fees and sales tax! I deducted about $400 last year doing this. Just multiply your total registration/sales tax by your business use percentage and include it as a separate line item on Schedule C. The key is keeping excellent records either way. I use a simple mileage tracking app and take photos of all vehicle-related receipts. Makes tax time so much easier!

Has anyone seen actual text from the proposal? All I can find are news articles ABOUT the proposal but not the actual details. Would love to read the source document if anyone has it.

I've been following this discussion closely as someone who's also trying to understand these proposed changes. What strikes me is how much misinformation is circulating about this topic. From my research, the key thing people are missing is that this isn't really about "taxing 401k contributions" - it's about changing the tax incentive structure from deductions to credits. Under the current system, if you're in the 32% tax bracket, you save 32 cents per dollar contributed. Under the proposed credit system, everyone would get the same percentage benefit regardless of income level. For most middle-class earners, this would actually be a tax cut, not an increase. The "harm" only comes to high-income earners who currently get outsized tax benefits from retirement contributions. Regarding the original poster's concern about employer profit-sharing contributions - these would still be treated as pre-tax contributions that get taxed upon withdrawal, just like today. The credit system would apply to how much tax benefit you get from making those contributions, not when they're taxed. It's frustrating how complex tax policy gets distorted in the media cycle. The actual proposal is much more nuanced than "Biden wants to tax your 401k.

Just a heads up - if your insurance reimbursed you for any of the damage, you need to subtract that from your casualty loss calculation. The IRS only allows you to deduct losses that weren't covered by insurance. Same goes for any FEMA assistance you received for repairs.

I went through something very similar after Hurricane damage last year. For documentation, I found that taking detailed photos before any cleanup was crucial - I wish I had taken more! The IRS accepts multiple types of evidence for fair market value: 1) Contractor estimates (like others mentioned) - get at least 2-3 if possible 2) Insurance adjuster reports - even if they denied coverage, their damage assessment is valuable 3) Real estate appraisals if you have recent ones 4) Receipts for original purchases when available 5) Online research for replacement costs (save screenshots with dates) For your specific situation with back-to-back storms, make sure to clearly separate the damage from each event since they're different FEMA declarations. I had to create a detailed timeline showing what was damaged in storm #1 vs. what additional damage occurred in storm #2. One thing that caught me off guard - if you're planning to rebuild/repair, keep ALL receipts. Sometimes the actual repair costs can help support your "difference in value" calculations, especially if contractors find additional damage during the work that wasn't initially visible. The key is having a paper trail for everything. The IRS wants to see that you made reasonable efforts to establish fair values, not necessarily that you hired expensive appraisers.

According to Internal Revenue Manual 25.25.6.1, returns with incarceration indicators are subject to additional scrutiny under the Prisoner Fraud Prevention Program. However, IRM 21.5.6.4.52 also states that taxpayers released during the tax year may experience different processing procedures than those who remained incarcerated throughout. Your return will likely be reviewed, but since you're no longer in the system, it should move through verification more quickly. I'd recommend checking your tax transcript weekly rather than daily - excessive access attempts can sometimes trigger additional verification flags.

Based on my experience working with clients who've been through similar situations, you should expect some processing delay but it will likely be much shorter than what you experienced last year. Here's why: The IRS system automatically flags returns with "yes" answers to the incarceration question, but the key difference now is your current status. Since you were discharged in July and are no longer under any form of supervision, the verification process should be more straightforward. What typically happens: • Your return gets pulled for manual review (usually adds 2-4 weeks) • They verify your current status isn't showing active incarceration • Since you can respond to any correspondence quickly, processing continues I'd suggest filing as early as possible and monitoring your transcript through the IRS website. If you do get stuck in review longer than 6 weeks, that's when I'd recommend using a callback service like the ones mentioned above to speak directly with an agent. The good news is that each year you file without issues, the less scrutiny your future returns will receive. This should be your last year dealing with significant delays from this flag.

quick question - wouldn't this situation be simpler if the parents just reported the entire sale on their return since they got most of the money? seems like unnecessary complication for the kid to report anything if they just got a small gift from the proceeds.

@Haley Bennett - I went through something very similar when my mom added me to her house deed before selling. Since your parents gifted you the ownership interest, you definitely need to report your portion even though you only received $6,800. Here's what worked for me: First, figure out your exact ownership percentage from the deed (sounds like it might be equal thirds if all three names are listed). Then on Form 8949, report only your percentage of the $240k proceeds. For basis, since it was a gift from your parents, you'll use your share of their original purchase price plus any improvements they made before gifting your interest. In FreeTaxUSA, when you get to the 1099-S section, there should be an option to edit or override the amounts. Enter your calculated portion and add a description like "Reporting 33.33% ownership interest per deed" in the description field. The key is making sure your reported numbers match your actual ownership percentage, not the cash you received. Don't stress too much - this is actually a common situation and the IRS sees it all the time with family property sales!