


Ask the community...
@297b08930051 Hey Connor! I totally feel your pain on this - the whole Pathward situation is one of the most confusing parts of using H&R Block. I went through the exact same thing last year and it drove me absolutely crazy! Here's the deal: Pathward is essentially just H&R Block's payment processor - think of it like the cashier at a store who takes your money and gives you change, except you never actually interact with them directly. When you chose to have your fees deducted from your refund, your money goes IRS โ Pathward (they take the fees) โ your bank account. The key thing is you CAN'T access a Pathward account because one doesn't exist for you. Instead, track your refund through: โข Your H&R Block online account (shows basic processing status) โข IRS "Where's My Refund" tool (most accurate and up-to-date) Don't worry about losing your sanity over this - the system is intentionally confusing and H&R Block doesn't explain it well. Once your refund goes through (usually takes about 21 days total), you'll understand the process much better for next year. You're doing everything right by trying to stay on top of it! Hang in there! ๐
@d676cee2f2da This is such a perfect analogy with the cashier example! I wish H&R Block would just explain it this simply upfront instead of making us all figure it out through trial and error. I'm definitely bookmarking this thread because I know I'll forget these details by next tax season. It's honestly ridiculous that such a basic part of the tax filing process is made so unnecessarily mysterious. Thanks for taking the time to break this down so clearly - you've probably saved a lot of people from the same frustrating wild goose chase I went on! ๐
@297b08930051 As someone who's helped family members navigate this exact confusion, I can totally relate to your frustration! The Pathward/H&R Block setup is genuinely one of the most poorly explained processes in tax filing. Here's what's actually happening: When you selected the option to pay H&R Block's fees from your refund (instead of upfront), you essentially created a temporary "pit stop" for your money. The IRS sends your full refund to Pathward, they extract H&R Block's fees, then forward the remainder to your actual bank account. The reason you can't find a Pathward login is because you're not actually their customer - H&R Block is. You're just the beneficiary of a temporary transaction. For tracking, stick to these two reliable sources: โข **H&R Block online account** - Shows if your return was accepted and when they expect to receive your refund โข **IRS Where's My Refund tool** - Shows the real-time status from the government's perspective Pro tip: The IRS tool is usually 1-2 days ahead of what H&R Block shows you. Once the IRS says "sent," expect 2-4 additional business days for the Pathward processing and transfer to your bank. You're not overthinking this - the system really is unnecessarily convoluted! But you're on the right track asking these questions. ๐
I totally get how stressful this is - the unknown is always the worst part! I went through something very similar last year and it turned out to be much less scary than I initially thought. Based on what you're describing and the codes others mentioned (570 and 971), this is most likely a routine verification request. Since you mentioned claiming education credits, that's probably what triggered it. The IRS has been doing a lot more verification on education-related credits lately. Here's what I'd suggest while you wait for the letter: - Gather your 1098-T forms and any receipts/bank statements showing tuition payments - If you claimed the American Opportunity Credit, have documentation that shows you were enrolled at least half-time - Keep copies of everything organized and ready to send When the letter comes (and it will - don't worry about it getting lost), respond exactly as they request. If they want documents faxed, fax them. If they want them mailed, use certified mail with return receipt. The whole process from response to refund release took about 7 weeks for me, but I did get my full refund with no adjustments. It's frustrating to wait, but this really is routine verification, not an audit or anything punitive. Hang in there - you'll get through this and get your refund!
I completely understand your anxiety about this! I went through the exact same situation about 8 months ago and it was definitely stressful waiting for that letter to arrive. In my case, it ended up being verification for education credits too - they sent me a CP05 letter asking for my 1098-T form and proof that I actually paid the tuition expenses I claimed. The whole thing was resolved pretty smoothly once I sent in the documentation. A couple of things that might help ease your mind: - The fact that you can see the 570 and 971 codes on your transcript is actually a good sign - it means they're just requesting information, not that they've already made any adjustments to your return - Since it's been about a week since the codes appeared, your letter should arrive within the next 1-2 weeks - Having your education documents ready (1098-T, tuition receipts, enrollment verification) will save you time once the letter arrives The waiting is definitely the hardest part, but this really is routine verification. I ended up getting my full refund about 5 weeks after I responded to their letter. Just make sure to respond promptly and send exactly what they ask for using their preferred method (fax vs. mail). You've got this - it's way more common than you think and definitely not something to panic about!
This entire discussion has been incredibly enlightening! As someone who's been preparing my own taxes for years but just hit the NIIT threshold for the first time, Form 8960 has been completely overwhelming. What really stands out to me is how this community came together to solve what initially seemed like a simple software discrepancy but turned out to be a genuinely complex tax interpretation issue. The fact that multiple people independently verified the same approach through different channels (IRS calls, CPA consultations, AI tools, etc.) really builds confidence in the methodology. I'm particularly grateful for the step-by-step example with actual numbers - seeing the $50K investment income divided by $200K total income to get the 25% ratio, then multiplying by the full $15K state tax amount to get $3,750 for Line 9b makes it crystal clear. That concrete illustration was worth more than reading the IRS instructions multiple times. The legislative context about preventing double taxation rather than creating additional deduction benefits also helps explain why the SALT cap doesn't apply here. It's one of those situations where understanding the "why" behind the rule makes the calculation method make much more sense. Thanks to everyone who shared their research and experiences - this is exactly the kind of practical tax guidance that makes navigating these complex forms possible for regular taxpayers like me!
I'm completely new to this community and Form 8960, but this thread has been absolutely invaluable! Like you, I just crossed the NIIT threshold for the first time and was totally confused by the different results I was getting from various tax software. What really helped me was seeing how everyone worked through this methodically - from the initial confusion about the $130 difference between software programs, to multiple people getting IRS confirmation, to the detailed Treasury Regulation citations. It shows that even complex tax issues can be solved when people share their research and experiences. The concrete example with the ratio calculation (investment income รท total income ร full state taxes = Line 9b amount) was exactly what I needed to understand the mechanics. And the explanation about why the SALT cap doesn't apply - because NIIT operates as a separate tax system designed to prevent double taxation - finally made the rules click for me. I'm definitely going to document my calculation method and keep references to Treasury Regulation 1.1411-4(f)(3) in my tax files. This community approach to solving tax problems is so much more helpful than trying to figure it out alone with confusing IRS instructions! Thanks to everyone who contributed - this is exactly the kind of collaborative problem-solving that makes complex tax situations manageable for newcomers like me.
As someone who just discovered this community while struggling with the exact same Form 8960 issue, this thread has been a lifesaver! I was getting completely different NIIT calculations between TaxAct and H&R Block software and couldn't figure out why. The detailed explanation about using the full state tax amount (without the SALT cap) in the ratio calculation finally makes sense. I've been going in circles trying to understand why the $10,000 limitation wouldn't apply, but the clarification that NIIT operates as a separate tax system designed to prevent double taxation really clicked for me. What I find most reassuring is how multiple people independently verified this approach through different channels - IRS calls, CPA consultations, and even AI tax tools all pointing to the same methodology. That kind of consensus gives me confidence to proceed with the calculation. The step-by-step example was incredibly helpful too. I worked through it with my own numbers: $75,000 investment income รท $300,000 total income = 25%, then 25% ร $18,000 state taxes = $4,500 for Line 9b. This should reduce my NIIT by about $171, which definitely makes the effort worthwhile. I'm keeping detailed documentation of this calculation method along with references to Treasury Regulation 1.1411-4(f)(3) that was mentioned. Thanks to everyone who shared their research and experiences - this community collaboration is exactly what I needed to navigate this confusing tax situation!
Welcome to the community! I'm new here too and have been following this thread closely as I work through my own Form 8960 confusion. Your calculation example really helps - seeing how the 25% ratio works with different income amounts ($75K investment income vs the earlier $50K example) reinforces that the method is consistent regardless of the specific numbers. I'm in a similar situation with conflicting software results, and like you, I'm finding the consensus across multiple verification methods really reassuring. The fact that people got the same answer whether they called the IRS directly, consulted CPAs, or used newer AI tools suggests this interpretation is solid. One thing I'm curious about - did you find any state-specific guidance for your situation? Someone mentioned earlier that Illinois provides breakdowns of state tax by income type, and I'm wondering if other states do something similar that might provide an alternative to the ratio method. Thanks for sharing your specific numbers and calculation - it's helpful to see more real-world examples of how this works in practice!
I've been following this thread closely as someone in a similar situation, and I wanted to add some practical context about planning with these future changes. Even though the age 75 requirement won't kick in until 2033, it's worth considering how this affects your overall retirement withdrawal strategy now. One thing I learned from my financial planner is that the delayed RMD age might actually create some tax planning challenges. If you're waiting until 75 to start required withdrawals, you could end up with larger account balances that force bigger RMDs when they do start. This could potentially push you into higher tax brackets in your later 70s and 80s. The key is thinking about voluntary distributions in your early 70s to manage your tax bracket, especially if you have other income sources like Social Security or pensions that will increase your taxable income over time. The flexibility to choose when to start taking money out (versus being forced to) is actually a valuable planning tool. Has anyone else considered how these changes might affect their overall tax strategy, not just the technical compliance with RMD rules?
This is such a great point about the potential tax trap! I hadn't really thought about how delaying RMDs could actually backfire if your account keeps growing. My 401k has been doing pretty well, and if I wait until 75 to start taking distributions, the required amounts could be massive by then. I'm starting to think the sweet spot might be taking some voluntary distributions in that gap period between when I could take them penalty-free and when I'm required to. Maybe starting small distributions at 70 or 72 to keep my tax bracket manageable, even though I won't be forced to until 75. Does anyone know if there are any downsides to taking voluntary distributions before the RMD age kicks in? Like, are there any restrictions on how much you can take, or does it work just like regular IRA/401k withdrawals as long as you're over 59.5?
Great question about voluntary distributions! Once you're over 59.5, there are generally no restrictions on how much you can withdraw from your traditional IRA or 401(k) - you just pay ordinary income tax on the distributions. The main thing to watch out for is managing your tax bracket. One strategy I've seen work well is what's called "bracket filling" - taking enough distributions each year to fill up your current tax bracket without pushing into the next one. For example, if you're in the 12% bracket, you might take distributions up to the top of that bracket, then stop to avoid jumping to 22%. Another consideration is the timing of Social Security benefits. Since those become taxable at certain income levels, coordinating your voluntary IRA distributions with when you start claiming Social Security can be really important for managing your overall tax burden. The flexibility that comes with the delayed RMD age is actually one of the best parts of SECURE 2.0, but it does require more active planning than just waiting for the government to tell you what to withdraw. Working with a tax professional who understands these new rules can really pay off in the long run.
This bracket filling strategy sounds really smart, but I'm wondering how to actually calculate this in practice. Do you use tax software to model different withdrawal scenarios, or is there a simpler way to figure out where those bracket thresholds are each year? I'm also curious about state taxes - I live in a state with income tax, so I assume I need to consider both federal and state brackets when planning these voluntary distributions. It seems like there's a lot of moving parts to optimize, especially with potential changes to tax brackets over the years leading up to 2033. Has anyone found good tools or resources for modeling these different withdrawal strategies? I don't want to mess this up and end up paying way more in taxes than I need to.
Rajan Walker
This thread has been super informative! I'm dealing with a similar situation where I received my final paycheck of 2023 on December 31st via direct deposit, but my pay stub shows January 1st, 2024 as the "pay period end date." My employer's HR department is insisting this makes it 2024 income, but based on everything I'm reading here about constructive receipt, it sounds like they're incorrect since I had the money in my account on December 31st, 2023. Has anyone successfully convinced their employer to correct this kind of mistake? I'm worried about getting into a back-and-forth argument with payroll when tax season is already here. Should I just accept their decision and file Form 4852 like someone mentioned, or is it worth fighting this?
0 coins
Micah Franklin
โขYou're absolutely right to push back on this! The pay period end date is irrelevant - what matters is when you actually received the money, which was December 31st, 2023. Your employer's HR department is confusing pay period dates with constructive receipt rules. I'd definitely recommend fighting this before accepting it and filing Form 4852. Start by providing your HR/payroll department with documentation about constructive receipt doctrine - you can find the official IRS guidance in Publication 15 (Employer's Tax Guide). If they still refuse, escalate to a supervisor or the finance department. Many payroll people simply aren't familiar with these rules and assume the pay period date is what matters. The reason I'd push for correction rather than just filing Form 4852 is that having an incorrect W-2 can create complications down the road, especially if the IRS questions the discrepancy. It's much cleaner to get your employer to issue a corrected W-2 now than to deal with potential issues later. Plus, you're probably not the only employee affected by this mistake, so fixing it helps everyone.
0 coins
Ravi Malhotra
I'm a tax preparer and see this confusion every year. The key thing to remember is that the IRS follows the "constructive receipt" rule - you're taxed on income when you have the right to receive it, not when it's officially "earned" or when the pay period ends. Since your money was deposited December 30, 2023, that's when you constructively received it, so it belongs on your 2023 W2. Your employer should include this in your 2023 W2, giving you 13 paychecks for that year. This is completely normal and happens whenever year-end pay dates fall this way. Don't let them tell you otherwise - the deposit date is what matters for tax purposes, not the pay stub date or pay period. If your employer insists on putting it on your 2024 W2, they're making an error that you'll need to address before filing your taxes.
0 coins
Malik Jackson
โขThank you for the professional perspective! As someone new to dealing with year-end payroll issues, this is really reassuring. I was getting stressed about potentially having to argue with my employer's payroll department, but now I feel more confident about the rules. Quick question - if my employer does refuse to correct my W2 and I have to file Form 4852, will that trigger an audit or cause problems with the IRS? I want to make sure I understand all my options before I decide whether to push back or just accept their mistake and work around it.
0 coins