The issue is 100% a software problem. Health insurance for partners reported as guaranteed payments reduces QBI at the partnership level. The software is making a second reduction at the individual level, which is incorrect. If you don't want to override, another approach is to NOT report the health insurance as a guaranteed payment on the 1065, and instead just show it as a footnote on the K-1 and have the partner deduct it on their 1040. This isn't technically correct per IRS instructions, but effectively gets the right QBI result. But honestly, just overriding the software calculation is cleaner.

This is such a widespread issue this filing season! I'm seeing it across multiple software platforms - UltraTax, ProSeries, Drake, and others all had similar bugs with the QBI calculations for partnership health insurance. What's really frustrating is that the software companies seem to understand the S Corp treatment (health insurance in W-2 wages shouldn't reduce QBI again on the individual return) but haven't applied the same logic to partnerships. The concept is identical - the guaranteed payment for health insurance already reduces QBI at the partnership level. For anyone still dealing with this, I'd strongly recommend documenting your override with a detailed workpaper. Include references to Reg. Sec. 1.199A-3(b)(1)(vi) and note that the guaranteed payment has already reduced QBI at the entity level. The IRS guidance is pretty clear on this point, even if the software implementation has been problematic. Has anyone heard if the major software companies have committed to fixing this for next filing season? It seems like such a basic issue that affects so many partnership returns.

I'm in a similar situation - got the call from the IRS yesterday and they mentioned the 5747C letter is coming. Reading through everyone's experiences here is really helpful! It sounds like there's no getting around the in-person appointment, which is frustrating but at least now I know what to expect. I'm particularly concerned about the wait times for appointments since I need to get this resolved quickly. Has anyone had success calling first thing in the morning to get through to schedule faster? Also wondering if all TAC locations have similar wait times or if some are better than others in terms of availability.

Just wanted to add my perspective as someone who went through this process recently. The 5747C verification is definitely in-person only - no exceptions. What helped me was being super organized beforehand. I made a checklist of all required documents from the letter and gathered everything the night before my appointment. Also, I'd recommend bringing a book or something to do while you wait, even with an appointment there can still be delays. The IRS agents are actually pretty helpful once you get in there, and they'll walk you through exactly what they need to verify. One thing that surprised me was how quickly my case moved forward after verification - got my refund about 10 days later. The inconvenience is real, but the actual process isn't as scary as it seems from all the horror stories online!

Pro tip: check your transcript instead of WMR. Its more accurate and updates faster. You can pull it on irs.gov if you make an account

Don't stress too much! I filed around the same time last year and it took almost a week before WMR updated. The IRS processing centers are slammed right now with early filers. As long as you got the transmission confirmation from TurboTax, you're good. The system just needs time to catch up. If you're really anxious, try checking your transcript like others mentioned - it usually shows acceptance before WMR does.

I think what's happening is your old CPA was allocating losses based on the partnership agreement (by ownership %), but the new CPA is saying this violates the "economic effect" rules in Section 704(b). Basically, for loss allocations to be respected, they need to have "substantial economic effect" - meaning the partner who takes the tax loss should bear the economic burden of that loss. If one partner is funding everything, they may be entitled to more losses regardless of ownership %. This is super complex territory that even experienced CPAs get wrong. The new CPA might be right technically, but it creates a mess when changing approaches midstream. You need someone to prepare a complete basis schedule from inception to present to sort this out properly.

This is a really complex situation that highlights why partnership taxation is so tricky. Based on what you've described, it sounds like you're caught between two different approaches to loss allocation - one based purely on ownership percentages, and another based on economic risk. The key issue here is that partnership tax law requires loss allocations to have "substantial economic effect" under Section 704(b). This means the partner claiming the loss should actually bear the economic burden if the partnership fails. If one member is funding most operations while others take equal loss allocations, that can create problems. Your negative capital account might actually be less concerning than it appears. What really matters for your ability to deduct losses is your "outside basis" - which includes your capital contributions plus your share of partnership liabilities. Even with a negative capital account, you might still have positive basis if the partnership has debt allocated to you. A few questions that might help clarify your situation: - Does the partnership have any loans or debt that would be allocated among partners? - What does your partnership agreement say about loss allocation and capital account maintenance? - Are there any guarantee provisions or deficit restoration requirements? Given the complexity and the fact that you're getting conflicting advice from CPAs, you might want to consider getting a third opinion from someone who specializes in partnership taxation. The difference between the two approaches could have significant implications for both current and prior year returns.

Called the IRS and sat on hold for 2 hours just to be told to wait 21 days... like thanks for nothing 🤮

I'm in a similar situation with cycle 05 and feeling the same anxiety! Filed early February and my transcript shows processing date of 2/26 but still no movement. The waiting is killing me too, especially when you're counting on that money. One thing I noticed from your transcript details - your refund amount is actually $3,388, not $2,388 like someone mentioned earlier. The math checks out: $2,640 withholding + $1,262 EIC - $514 tax = $3,388 total refund. Since you have EIC, the PATH Act requires them to hold refunds until at least February 15th, and with processing backlogs it can take even longer. Your cycle 05 means weekly updates, so definitely check your transcript again this Friday. Hang in there - based on what others are saying, movement should happen soon! The fact that your transcript shows all the right codes and no errors is a good sign.