


Ask the community...
One important factor nobody's mentioned: Your girlfriend might be able to file even with no earned income if she received student loans or grants that count as taxable income. She should check if any of her financial aid is taxable. If she does need to file, then she could claim her son and then you could claim her as your dependent (assuming you provide more than half her support). But you can't claim both her AND her son typically - that would be like claiming a dependent's dependent, which IRS doesn't allow.
Thanks for bringing that up about her student aid. She did get some grants, but they all went directly to tuition and books, so I think those are tax-free? She doesn't have any loans. About claiming both her and her son - that's good to know. If I had to choose, would it be more beneficial to claim her or him for tax purposes?
Grants that went directly to qualified educational expenses like tuition and required books are generally not taxable, so you're probably right that she doesn't need to file if that was her only income beyond the child support (which isn't taxable to the recipient). As for whether to claim her or her son, it usually makes more financial sense to claim the child if you have to choose. A qualifying child can potentially make you eligible for credits like the Child Tax Credit (worth up to $2,000 per qualifying child) and potentially the Earned Income Credit if your income falls in the eligible range. These are typically worth more than the standard dependent deduction you'd get for claiming your girlfriend.
Make sure whatever you decide is documented! My cousin tried claiming his girlfriend's kid and got audited because the ex also claimed the same child. You need to make sure everyone is on the same page about who's claiming who, and keep records of how much you contributed to the household expenses and the child's specific expenses.
100% this! I work at a tax prep office and the #1 issue we see with dependent claims is lack of documentation. Keep receipts for major purchases, rent payments, utilities, etc. If you're audited, you'll need to prove you provided over half of the child's total support.
I think we're overlooking the psychological aspect of taxation. With a progressive system, people generally understand that as they earn more, they'll pay a higher percentage. It feels intuitive to most. A flat tax creates a situation where someone earning $40k pays the same rate as someone earning $4 million. While mathematically the wealthy person pays more in absolute dollars, it doesn't account for the diminishing utility of money as wealth increases. Also, removing ALL exemptions would create weird situations. Would charitable donations no longer be deductible? Would businesses not be able to deduct legitimate expenses? That seems untenable.
You make a good point about the psychological aspect. I hadn't considered that angle before. But regarding business expenses - couldn't those be handled separately from personal taxation? Like keep business deductions but simplify personal taxes? And for charitable giving, I wonder if people would still donate without the tax incentive...
That's a really interesting question about separating business and personal tax structures. It could work in theory, but then you'd still need a complex system for business taxation. Most economists think there should be symmetry between personal and business tax structures to prevent gaming the system. As for charitable giving, studies have shown that tax incentives do influence donation behavior significantly. While people would still give to causes they care about, the research suggests overall giving would decrease by 25-40% if the deduction was eliminated. This would hit smaller local charities the hardest since they rely more on middle-class donors who are more tax-sensitive.
I'm confused about smthg... if we had a flat tax with NO exemptions whatsoever, wouldn't that mean even people on social security and disability would get taxed? That seems really harsh. And what about people working minimum wage jobs? They're already struggling to make ends meet.
I've been a tax preparer for 10+ years and the premium deduction question confuses a lot of clients. Here's a quick breakdown of what's deductible: Self-employed? Health/dental/vision/LTC premiums = fully deductible as adjustment to income Not self-employed? Only as itemized medical expense (if >7.5% of AGI) Business owner? Liability/malpractice/etc = business expense Homeowner? Homeowners insurance = NOT deductible for personal residence Long-term care = partially deductible based on age brackets The problem with tax software is they often ask these questions in different places based on your answers to earlier questions. That's probably why you're seeing it in FreeTaxUSA but not TurboTax.
What about Medicare premiums? I'm retired but also have some self-employment income from consulting. Are those deductible too? TurboTax never seems to ask me about this.
Medicare premiums (Parts B and D) are indeed deductible as part of the self-employed health insurance deduction if you have self-employment income! This is a commonly missed deduction. The key is that you can only deduct premiums up to the amount of your net self-employment income. If you're using TurboTax, you'll need to look in the self-employment section and find where you enter your health insurance. There should be an option to include Medicare premiums there. If your consulting income is reasonably substantial, this could be a significant tax savings for you.
Random question but has anyone tried the IRS Free File program instead of commercial software? I'm wondering if it handles these premium deductions more clearly. I'm so tired of discovering that I've been missing deductions for years because of how tax software presents questions.
I used IRS Free File through one of their partners last year and it was actually pretty straightforward about insurance premiums. It specifically asked about self-employed health insurance in a separate section and had clear explanations. Much more direct than the commercial versions where they hide things in weird places.
Some important nuances your relatives should consider regarding the S-Corp situation: 1. If they keep the S-Corp but change the main business activity from operating a business to holding rental property, they need to be careful about the "passive investment income" rules. S-Corps that previously operated active businesses but switch to primarily generating passive income (like rent) can face additional taxes if they have accumulated earnings and profits from C corporation years. 2. They should also consider whether keeping the S-Corp structure makes sense for rental property. There are often better entities for holding rental real estate, like an LLC taxed as a partnership or even direct ownership, depending on liability concerns and their specific situation. 3. The "step transaction doctrine" would likely apply if they create an LLC, buy property, then have the S-Corp buy it right after the asset sale. The IRS might treat it as a single transaction and disallow 1031 treatment.
This is super helpful. They've had the S-Corp for about 20 years, and it was always an S-Corp (never a C-Corp), so maybe the passive income concern isn't an issue? Do you think it would be better for them to just dissolve the S-Corp after the asset sale and create a new LLC specifically for the rental property? Or would that trigger immediate taxation on the asset sale proceeds?
You're right that the passive income concern wouldn't apply if they've always been an S-Corp, so that's good news. That issue primarily affects companies that converted from C to S status. Creating a new LLC after dissolving the S-Corp could be a better long-term solution. However, the dissolution would still trigger taxation on the asset sale proceeds - you can't avoid that tax by changing entities afterward. The tax is due when the sale occurs while still in the S-Corp. If they're set on the rental property approach, they might consider selling the business assets, distributing the after-tax proceeds to themselves personally, and then purchasing the rental property in their own names or through a new LLC. This gives them a clean break from the business entity and often provides better tax treatment for rental properties, especially regarding potential future benefits like step-up in basis for heirs.
Just to clear up some confusion about 1031 exchanges specifically - there are two key points that would make this challenging: 1. The "held for investment" requirement: The property being sold must be held for investment purposes or used in a trade or business. While their business property likely qualifies, changing the use from business operations to rental income might be problematic. The IRS looks at intent, and they might question whether the original property was truly "held for investment." 2. Timing issues: A 1031 exchange requires you to first sell your property, then acquire the replacement property within specific timeframes. You can't acquire the replacement property first (which is what the LLC scenario would be attempting to do). The reverse 1031 exchange does exist, which allows buying the new property before selling the old one, but it's complex and requires a specialized Exchange Accommodation Titleholder to temporarily hold title to one of the properties.
Brooklyn Foley
Don't forget to check if your state offers free filing too! The IRS Free File program is just for federal taxes. Some states have their own free filing programs or partnerships with tax software companies. For example, I live in California and was able to file both federal AND state taxes for free through the CalFile program even though I made just over the $72,000 limit for the federal program. Each state has different rules.
0 coins
Jay Lincoln
ā¢Do you know which states offer free filing? I'm in Ohio and always end up paying for state filing even when I get the federal for free.
0 coins
Brooklyn Foley
ā¢I don't have a comprehensive list for all states, but I know Ohio has something called Ohio I-File which is a free electronic filing service. It's separate from the IRS Free File program though, so you'd need to go directly to the Ohio Department of Taxation website to access it. Many states actually do offer some form of free filing, but they don't advertise it well. Check your state's tax department website and look specifically for terms like "free file" or "e-file." Sometimes you need to dig around a bit to find the free options.
0 coins
Jessica Suarez
I tried the Free File program last year and it was a disaster for me. Started with TurboTax through the IRS link, got halfway through, and then it said I needed to upgrade because I had HSA contributions. Tried another service, same thing happened when it saw I had some stock sales. Ended up paying anyway. š”
0 coins
Marcus Williams
ā¢Next time try FreeTaxUSA - they handle HSA and basic investment stuff on their free version. I've used them for years and only pay like $15 for state filing. Their federal filing is free regardless of complexity for most situations.
0 coins