What about work-life balance differences between the two? I'm currently in law school and considering tax law, but hearing horror stories about attorney hours has me second-guessing.

This is such a helpful thread! I'm in a similar position - been doing tax prep for 3 years and trying to decide my next move. One thing I'm curious about that hasn't been mentioned much is the income progression differences. From what I've researched, tax attorneys seem to have higher starting salaries but CPAs might have more predictable income growth over time. Has anyone here made the switch from one to the other, or can you speak to how the compensation tracks differently over a 10-15 year career span? Also, I'm wondering about the continuing education requirements - are they significantly different between the two paths? I know both require ongoing learning, but I'm curious if one is more intensive than the other in terms of staying current. Thanks for all the real-world insights everyone has shared so far - this is exactly the kind of practical information that's hard to find elsewhere!

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet - make sure you're considering state taxes too. In some states, S corps face additional taxes or fees that LLCs don't. Here in California, for example, S corps have a minimum $800 franchise tax regardless of profit, plus an additional 1.5% tax on net income. I switched from LLC to S corp 3 years ago when my handyman business income hit about $95k, and while I saved on federal self-employment taxes, the CA additional taxes ate into about 20% of those savings. Also, don't forget the admin burden. You absolutely need a good accountant for an S corp - trying to DIY the payroll requirements, shareholder meetings, separate accounting, etc. is a nightmare.

Everyone's talking about the tax benefits of S Corps, but nobody mentioned the asset protection angle! As someone who got sued in my construction business, this matters. With an LLC, if you're a single-member, the courts in many states treat it as less separation between you and the business. With an S Corp, you have stronger liability protection in many jurisdictions because the corporate structure is more clearly defined and respected by courts. Also, for QBI purposes, remember that certain construction specialties may count as "specified service businesses" which phase out QBI benefits at higher income levels. Worth checking if your specific estimating work falls under that category!

Has anyone considered that the OP might be able to use the home office deduction? If you have a legitimate home office for your podcast business (editing, admin work, etc.), then drives from your home office to other business locations aren't considered commuting - they're business travel. Might be a workaround worth exploring.

I've been dealing with similar mixed-use vehicle situations for my freelance consulting work. One thing that helped me was keeping a detailed log that separates my different uses of the car. For your situation, I'd suggest tracking three categories: 1) Regular W2 commute (not deductible), 2) Podcast-related equipment transport or meetings (potentially deductible), and 3) Any additional trips solely for podcast business (definitely deductible). The key is proving that specific trips or portions of your vehicle use are exclusively for the podcast business, not just multitasking during your regular commute. If you ever drive somewhere specifically to record an episode, meet with sponsors, or pick up podcast equipment, those miles would be legitimate business expenses. The IRS really focuses on the primary purpose of each trip, so documentation is crucial. Also consider that as your podcast grows, you might start doing more podcast-specific travel (conferences, interviews, equipment purchases) which would clearly be deductible business use.

Have you considered filing as "married filing separately" and having your spouse claim them? The rules can sometimes work differently depending on filing status. With MFS, sometimes the income limits work differently.

I've been following this thread and wanted to add something that might help clarify the situation. I work in tax preparation and see this scenario fairly often with clients who have foreign in-laws. The key thing to understand is that for dependency purposes, the IRS looks at gross income from worldwide sources, regardless of where it's taxed. So even though your in-laws' pension is taxed in their home country due to the tax treaty, it still counts toward the $5,050 gross income limit for 2024. However, there are a few things worth double-checking: 1. Make sure you're looking at the gross pension amount before any foreign taxes are withheld 2. Some tax treaties have specific provisions about what constitutes "income" for dependency purposes - though this is rare 3. If either parent has any disability status, there might be exceptions to the gross income test Given what you've described (pension over $6,000), they likely won't qualify as dependents under the gross income test. But definitely verify the exact pension amount first, and consider consulting a tax professional who specializes in international tax issues since treaty provisions can be complex. The support test sounds like you'd easily meet it, and the relationship test is satisfied since they're your in-laws. It's really just that income threshold that's the barrier here.

Just a practical perspective - I tried something similar in my 3-member LLC a few years back. We took out a business line of credit and distributed some to partners when we were having a down year. We didn't get audited, but our accountant had to do some complex basis adjustments. The distributions reduced our basis, and when the business became profitable again, we had to restore that basis before taking tax-free distributions. Also worth noting - if your business stays unprofitable for too long while you're taking distributions, you might run into the "hobby loss" rules where the IRS decides your business isn't really a business if it never makes money!

I appreciate everyone sharing their experiences and insights here. As someone who's dealt with similar partnership tax issues, I wanted to add a few practical considerations that might help. The strategy you're describing reminds me of what tax professionals call "basis shifting" - trying to manipulate the timing of income and distributions to minimize taxes. While not inherently illegal, it's definitely in the gray area that attracts IRS scrutiny. One thing I learned the hard way is that partnership taxation is incredibly complex, and seemingly small details can have major consequences. For example, if your LLC has debt, that debt increases your basis (which is good for taking distributions), but only if you're personally liable for it. Non-recourse debt has different rules. Also consider the long-term implications. Even if this strategy works in the short term, you'll eventually need to repay the loan with after-tax dollars. Plus, if your business becomes profitable again, you might face higher taxes later when your basis is depleted from the distributions. My advice? Document everything thoroughly if you decide to proceed, and make sure you have legitimate business reasons for both the loan and the expenses. The IRS is much more forgiving of strategies that serve actual business purposes beyond tax minimization. Have you considered alternatives like adjusting your profit-sharing percentages or exploring guaranteed payments to partners? Sometimes simpler approaches are less risky.