Yes! I just double-checked and found it in the supplemental pages! There's a whole separate section for "Proceeds from Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions" that has all the info I need, including acquisition date and cost basis. Thanks for pointing this out - I was only looking at the first page.

Glad you found it! Robinhood's tax documents can be confusing because they combine different forms into one package. That supplemental section is actually the most important part for crypto transactions since it contains all the details you need for Form 8949. Just make sure you're using the correct acquisition dates since that determines whether it's long-term or short-term capital gains.

Yep, happened to me too. The cost basis on my 1099-B was off by about $25 compared to what my actual purchase price was. I had to file a Form 8949 with code B to indicate the cost basis was reported incorrectly to the IRS.

Thanks for this alternative suggestion! Do you know if there are specific lenders that offer these investment loans? And would Treasury bonds count as investment income for this purpose? I'm wondering if the interest from the bonds would be enough to offset the loan interest deduction limit.

Most major brokerages offer margin loans or dedicated investment loans. Firms like Charles Schwab, Fidelity, and Interactive Brokers all have these options, often with better rates than personal loans since they're secured by your portfolio. Yes, the interest from Treasury bonds would count as investment income for this purpose. However, there's still a fundamental math problem with your strategy. If your investments earn 3.34% and your loan costs 3.34%, you're basically breaking even before taxes. After paying capital gains tax on the bond interest, you'd be at a loss. The interest deduction would only recover part of that loss, not create a net gain.

This is solid advice. I tried to get clever with tax strategies a few years ago and ended up with a mess. Now I just max out my 401k ($23,000 for 2025), my HSA ($4150), and my Roth IRA (income permitting). Simple and effective.

Isn't filing an SS-8 form basically declaring war on a client though? I've heard horror stories about businesses getting hit with huge penalties after these forms are filed. Seems like a nuclear option if you ever want to work in the industry again.

You're right that filing an SS-8 is definitely escalating the situation, and it should be a last resort after you've tried everything else. It's not something I recommend if you're concerned about maintaining relationships in your industry. However, I don't think it's fair to characterize it as "declaring war" - it's simply using the proper channels when someone is refusing to fulfill their legal obligations. The penalties only come into play if they were incorrectly classifying workers, which is a legitimate issue. But yes, there could be relationship consequences, so weigh that against the tax implications for yourself.

Yeah, it was definitely above the threshold - around $5,800 total for the work. They actually did provide the 1099 form itself (which means they know they were required to), they just blacked out their own identification number on it, which is super weird.

Even if it's under $600, you still need to report the income. The $600 threshold is just for when the payer is required to send a 1099. You always have to report all income regardless of the amount.

Thanks for sharing your experience. Did your husband just report it as 2024 income then? Did he have to provide any special documentation with your tax return to explain the situation? I'm mostly concerned about the day they're claiming she worked when she definitely didn't.

Yes, he reported it as 2024 income since that's when the payment was received. We didn't need any special documentation - we just filed according to what was on the W2. For your specific concern about the day they claimed she worked when she didn't - that's trickier. If it's just a clerical error in how they coded the final payment, it probably doesn't matter for tax purposes. But if you're concerned someone else was using her employee number, that's worth addressing with the employer directly. Ask for detailed records of that specific day they claim she worked.

is there any downside to just reporting it as is? like could this cause problems with unemployment benefits or something if they think she was employed longer?

Great question. There could potentially be an impact on unemployment benefits if she filed for them immediately after leaving in December 2017. If the system shows she was employed into January 2018, that might have delayed eligibility. However, if she didn't file for unemployment, or if that period has already passed without issues, then there's likely no downside to reporting it as is. Social Security credits and other benefits are based on total annual income, not the specific timing of employment within the year.

Thanks for bringing this up. My wife has been in the US continuously since 2019, so I'm guessing the substantial presence test definitely applies to her. Does this mean we might not be eligible for the full exemption amount? Or just that we need to document it differently?

Since your wife has been here since 2019, she definitely meets the substantial presence test. This doesn't mean you lose the exemption - it just confirms she should be using Form 8833 rather than 8233. The good news is that Article 20c of the US-China treaty specifically allows the $5,000 exemption for students even after they become resident aliens, as long as they're still pursuing their education. So your wife should still qualify for the full exemption regardless of how long she's been here, as long as she's still a student. Just make sure to document that she's still pursuing her education when you complete Form 8833.

This is a really good point. Each type of income might need to be reported separately on Form 8833. The university should have a tax advisor who specializes in international student taxation - have you tried contacting them? Most large universities have someone who deals with this all the time.