US Federal Income Tax

Correct answer: .

IRC Section 1091 disallows a loss on the sale of stock or securities if the taxpayer acquires substantially identical stock or securities within the 61-day window beginning 30 days before and ending 30 days after the sale; buying the same stock back on December 1, 2025, sixteen days after a November 15, 2025 sale, falls inside that window, so the loss is disallowed, but it is not lost forever — it is added to the basis of the repurchased shares, deferring the benefit until those shares are later sold. The second option is wrong because 30 days, not 15, is the relevant threshold, and 16 days is still within the disallowance window. The fourth option is wrong because the wash sale rule defers the loss through a basis adjustment rather than eliminating it permanently. The third option is wrong because the timing of the disallowance depends on the 30-day acquisition window around the sale date, not on which tax year the return is filed.

Source: Internal Revenue Code Section 1091; IRS Instructions for Schedule D (Form 1040) (2025), 'Wash Sales'

Correct answer: .

The IRS defines AGI as total gross income minus certain adjustments to income, often called 'above-the-line' deductions because they are subtracted on Schedule 1 before the standard or itemized deduction is ever applied; Form 1040 adds total income on line 9, subtracts Schedule 1 adjustments on line 10, and reports AGI on line 11, all before the deduction is taken on a later line. The options that subtract the standard or itemized deduction in computing AGI -- whether the greater of the two or the standard deduction alone -- are wrong because the standard or itemized deduction is subtracted from AGI to reach taxable income, a step that happens after AGI is already calculated, not as part of calculating it. The option subtracting the standard deduction only is doubly wrong because itemized deductions are an alternative to the standard deduction, not something applied automatically before AGI. The option starting from taxable income minus a personal exemption is wrong because personal exemptions were suspended for tax years 2018 through 2025 and, in any case, exemptions would apply to taxable income, not to computing AGI itself.

Source: IRS 'Adjusted gross income' (irs.gov/filing/adjusted-gross-income); 2025 Form 1040 and Schedule 1 instructions

Correct answer: .

The IRS holding period rule counts from the day after acquisition through and including the day of disposition, and a gain is long-term only if the asset was held for more than one year; holding from March 10, 2024, through March 10, 2025, is exactly one year, so the sale one day too early to exceed the one-year mark produces a short-term gain, taxed at ordinary income rates rather than preferential long-term rates. The fourth option is wrong because reaching exactly one year is not the same as exceeding it — the IRS's own example shows that selling on the one-year anniversary date, rather than the day after, still yields a short-term result. The third option is wrong because there is no capital gains exemption tied to holding an asset for a calendar year. The first option is wrong because the more-than-one-year threshold applies to taxable brokerage holdings generally and is not altered by account type in this context.

Source: IRS Topic no. 409, Capital gains and losses (2025)

Correct answer: .

The IRS sets the self-employment tax rate at a combined 15.3%, made up of 12.4% for Social Security and 2.9% for Medicare, and allows the self-employed taxpayer to deduct the employer-equivalent half of that tax as an adjustment to income when figuring AGI, mirroring the fact that an employer would otherwise pay half of an employee's FICA tax. The option citing a 7.65% rate is wrong because 7.65% is only the employee-side FICA rate; self-employed individuals owe both the employee and employer shares, totaling 15.3%. The option calling SE tax an itemized deduction is wrong because the SE tax deduction is an above-the-line adjustment to income on Schedule 1, not an itemized deduction on Schedule A, so it is available even to taxpayers who take the standard deduction. The option claiming SE tax replaces income tax is wrong because SE tax funds Social Security and Medicare separately from, and in addition to, federal income tax owed on the same self-employment earnings.

Source: IRS 'Self-employment tax (Social Security and Medicare taxes)'; 2025 Instructions for Schedule SE (Form 1040)

Correct answer: .

The IRS requires three things for Head of Household status: the taxpayer must be unmarried or considered unmarried at the end of the year, must have paid more than half the cost of keeping up a home for the year, and must have a qualifying person who lived in that home for more than half the year (an exception exists only for a dependent parent, who need not live with the taxpayer). The first option is wrong because filing a separate return while still married generally results in Married Filing Separately status, not Head of Household, unless the specific 'considered unmarried' exception applies. The fourth option is wrong because Head of Household requires a qualifying person in the home; living alone with no dependents does not meet that requirement regardless of preference for a lower rate. The second option is wrong because the qualifying person must be a dependent (or otherwise meet the specific relationship tests), and an unrelated friend who is not a dependent does not satisfy that requirement.

Source: IRS Publication 501 (2025), 'Head of Household'

Correct answer: .

Under IRC Section 1411, the 3.8% NIIT applies to the lesser of an individual's net investment income or the excess of MAGI over the statutory threshold for their filing status; for a single filer the threshold is $200,000, so with MAGI of $220,000 the excess is $20,000, which is less than the $30,000 of net investment income, making $20,000 the taxable base. The third option is wrong because the tax is capped at the MAGI-excess amount when that figure is smaller than net investment income, not applied to the full investment income figure regardless of MAGI. The second option is wrong because NIIT is never assessed on total MAGI; it is assessed only on the lesser-of amount described above. The fourth option is wrong because $250,000 is the threshold for married filing jointly and qualifying surviving spouse, not for single filers, whose threshold is $200,000 and is not indexed for inflation.

Source: Internal Revenue Code Section 1411; IRS Topic no. 559, Net investment income tax; 2025 Instructions for Form 8960

Correct answer: .

The IRS allows Qualifying Surviving Spouse status for the two tax years following the year a spouse died, provided the taxpayer was entitled to file jointly in the year of death, has not remarried before the end of the current tax year, has a child, stepchild, or adopted child who qualifies (or would qualify but for a specific exception) as a dependent, that child lives in the home for more than half the year, and the taxpayer pays more than half the cost of keeping up that home; here the spouse died in 2024 and the facts satisfy all of these for the 2025 return, so the status applies. The third option is wrong because the availability window is limited to the two years following the year of death, not five years, and a dependent child is required. The fourth option is wrong because remarrying before the end of the year disqualifies the taxpayer entirely rather than being a requirement. The second option is wrong because, unlike Head of Household, Qualifying Surviving Spouse status requires a dependent child specifically; a dependent parent does not satisfy it.

Source: IRS Publication 501 (2025), 'Qualifying Surviving Spouse'

Correct answer: .

IRC Section 6654's safe harbors avoid the underpayment penalty if the taxpayer pays the smaller of 90% of the current year's tax or a percentage of the prior year's tax; that percentage is 100% for taxpayers whose prior-year AGI was $150,000 or less, but rises to 110% once prior-year AGI exceeds $150,000, so a taxpayer with $180,000 of 2024 AGI must use 110% of the 2024 tax (or 90% of the 2025 tax, if lower) rather than 100%. The option claiming the 100% safe harbor applies to every taxpayer regardless of AGI is wrong because the 100% figure only applies below the $150,000 AGI threshold; above it, the higher 110% figure replaces it. The option proposing 90% of the 2024 tax liability is wrong because it attaches the 90% percentage to the wrong year: the 90% prong of the test is measured against the current year's 2025 tax, while the prior-year-based safe harbor requires 100% of the prior-year tax or, at this income level, 110%, so paying only 90% of the 2024 liability understates what the prior-year-based prong requires. The option claiming no safe harbor is available once prior-year AGI exceeds $150,000 is wrong because a safe harbor remains available above $150,000 of AGI; the threshold changes the applicable percentage rather than eliminating the safe harbor.

Source: Internal Revenue Code Section 6654; IRS 2025 Instructions for Form 2210; 'Underpayment of estimated tax by individuals penalty'

Correct answer: .

The Child Tax Credit is only partially refundable: when it exceeds the tax owed, the taxpayer may claim the Additional Child Tax Credit for the unused amount, capped for 2025 at $1,700 per qualifying child, computed on Schedule 8812. The fourth option is wrong because the credit is not fully nonrefundable — the ACTC exists specifically to refund a capped portion of the amount that could not be used against tax liability. The third option is wrong because the refundable amount is limited to $1,700 per qualifying child in 2025, not the full unused credit with no ceiling. The first option is wrong because the ACTC is a refund paid to the taxpayer in the current year, computed via Schedule 8812, rather than a carryforward applied to a future year's return.

Source: IRS Instructions for Schedule 8812 (Form 1040) (2025); IRS 'Child Tax Credit'

Correct answer: .

IRC Section 6501 generally gives the IRS three years from the filing date to assess additional tax, but extends that period to six years when a taxpayer omits from gross income an amount properly includible that exceeds 25% of the gross income stated on the return, which is exactly the fact pattern described. The option citing three years states the general rule but ignores the statutory exception that applies once the 25% omission threshold is met, which is the specific rule this scenario is testing. The option denying any statute of limitations is wrong because Section 6501 does not eliminate the limitations period entirely for large omissions — it extends the period to a defined six years rather than making assessment open-ended, and an unlimited period applies only in narrower situations such as a false or fraudulent return, not merely a large omission. The option measuring one year from discovery is wrong because the six-year period runs from the filing date of the return, not from whenever the IRS happens to discover the omission.

Source: Internal Revenue Code Section 6501; IRS 'Statutes of limitations for assessing, collecting and refunding tax'

Correct answer: .

To be taxed as a qualified dividend under IRC Section 1(h)(11), common stock generally must be held for more than 60 days during the 121-day period that begins 60 days before the ex-dividend date, which the IRS phrases as holding the stock for at least 61 days of that 121-day window; preferred stock dividends attributable to periods over 366 days instead require at least 91 days within a 180-day window. The first option is wrong because the required holding period runs around the ex-dividend date over a 121-day window, not as a flat 30-day pre-declaration requirement with nothing required afterward. The third option is wrong because ordinary dividends only become qualified dividends if both the payer and holding-period conditions are met; qualification is not automatic. The fourth option is wrong because it confuses the qualified-dividend holding period with the unrelated more-than-one-year threshold that separates long-term from short-term capital gains.

Source: Internal Revenue Code Section 1(h)(11); IRS Topic no. 404, Dividends and other corporate distributions (2025)

Correct answer: .

Under IRC Section 219(g), a single taxpayer who is an active participant in an employer-sponsored retirement plan has a 2025 traditional IRA deduction phase-out range of $79,000 to $89,000 of modified adjusted gross income. At $85,000, MAGI falls inside that range, so the deductible amount is reduced on a sliding scale rather than cut to zero, and any contribution above the reduced deductible limit can still be made as a nondeductible contribution reported on Form 8606. The option describing a full disallowance at the $79,000 figure is wrong because that figure is only where the phase-out begins, not where the deduction reaches zero; the deduction is not fully eliminated until MAGI reaches $89,000. The option citing $146,000 as the relevant ceiling is wrong because that figure applies to a spouse who is not an active participant but is married to one who is, filing jointly, not to a single active participant. The option limiting the phase-out to Roth contributions is wrong because Section 219(g) governs the deductibility of traditional IRA contributions specifically; Roth IRA eligibility phases out under an entirely separate income limit that does not depend on active-participant status at all.

Source: IRS Notice 2024-80 (2025 cost-of-living adjustments for retirement plans); IRS, 'IRA Deduction Limits' (irs.gov/retirement-plans/ira-deduction-limits)

Correct answer: .

IRC Section 3101(b)(2) imposes an Additional Medicare Tax of 0.9% on wages paid in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year, and employers are required to withhold that extra amount only on the portion of wages above that threshold, which here is $50,000 ($250,000 minus $200,000). The option applying the 0.9% rate to the full $250,000 is wrong because the surtax reaches only wages above the $200,000 withholding threshold, not the entire wage amount; the regular 1.45% Medicare tax, by contrast, applies to all wages without a ceiling. The option claiming the surtax applies only to self-employment income is wrong because the Additional Medicare Tax applies to wages, self-employment income, and railroad retirement compensation alike; wage earners are squarely covered. The option describing an employer match is wrong because, unlike the regular 1.45% Medicare tax which the employer matches dollar-for-dollar, the Additional Medicare Tax is withheld from the employee's wages only and has no corresponding employer-paid share.

Source: IRS, 2025 Instructions for Form 8959, Additional Medicare Tax; IRS, 'Questions and Answers for the Additional Medicare Tax'

Correct answer: .

Under IRC Section 55, the 2025 AMT exemption for single filers is $88,100, and it phases out at a rate of 25 cents for every dollar of AMTI above a $626,350 threshold. At $700,000 of AMTI, the excess over the threshold is $73,650, so the exemption is reduced by roughly $18,413 (25% of $73,650), leaving a partial exemption of about $69,687 rather than zero. The option claiming total elimination at $700,000 is wrong because full phase-out to zero does not occur until AMTI reaches roughly $978,750 for a single filer (the point at which the full $88,100 exemption has been consumed by the 25-cent-per-dollar reduction); $700,000 is well short of that point. The option claiming the threshold applies only to joint filers is wrong because the AMT exemption phase-out applies to every filing status, each with its own threshold, and $626,350 is specifically the single/head-of-household threshold. The option describing an increasing exemption is wrong because the mechanism only ever reduces the exemption as AMTI rises above the threshold; it never increases it.

Source: IRS Rev. Proc. 2024-40 (2025 inflation adjustments); IRS Instructions for Form 6251, Alternative Minimum Tax—Individuals

Correct answer: .

Under IRC Section 199A, once a taxpayer's taxable income rises above the SSTB phase-out range entirely, income from a specified service trade or business no longer qualifies for the QBI deduction at all — the deduction for that business's income drops to zero, regardless of how much the business pays in W-2 wages or holds in qualified property. The option describing a wage-and-property limitation of the greater of 50% of W-2 wages, or 25% of W-2 wages plus 2.5% of qualified property, is wrong for an SSTB above the phase-out range: that limitation is what applies to a non-SSTB business at high income, which keeps some deduction if it pays enough wages or holds enough qualified property, unlike an SSTB, which loses the deduction outright. The option restricting the SSTB rule to C corporations is wrong because Section 199A's SSTB restriction applies to any pass-through structure carrying on the business, including sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations; C corporations are not eligible for the QBI deduction in the first place, so the restriction would be meaningless applied there. The option describing an automatic conversion into a below-the-line itemized deduction is wrong because no such conversion mechanism exists — the deduction simply disappears for SSTB income above the range rather than changing form.

Source: IRS, 'Qualified Business Income Deduction' (irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/qualified-business-income-deduction); IRS Rev. Proc. 2024-40 (2025 Section 199A thresholds)

Correct answer: .

The kiddie tax rules under IRC Section 1(g) apply a layered structure to a dependent child's unearned income for 2025: the first $1,350 is absorbed by the child's own standard deduction and produces no tax, the next $1,350 is taxed at the child's own individual rate, and any unearned income beyond that $2,700 combined amount — here, $6,000 minus $2,700, or $3,300 — is taxed at the parent's marginal tax rate on Form 8615. The option claiming the kiddie tax applies only to earned income is wrong because the rule is specifically designed to target a child's unearned income, such as interest, dividends, and capital gains distributions; a child's earned income from a job is taxed under the ordinary individual rates and is never subject to this rule. The option taxing the full $6,000 at the parent's rate is wrong because only the portion above the $2,700 combined threshold is taxed at the parent's rate; the first $2,700 still benefits from the standard deduction and the child's own bracket. The option describing an age-18 exemption is wrong because the kiddie tax generally applies to dependent children under age 19, and to full-time students under age 24 who do not provide more than half their own support, not merely until age 18.

Source: IRS, 2025 Instructions for Form 8615, Tax for Certain Children Who Have Unearned Income

Correct answer: .

The American Opportunity Tax Credit is computed per eligible student, up to a maximum of $2,500 each, and up to 40% of that amount (as much as $1,000) is refundable even if the taxpayer owes no tax; the Lifetime Learning Credit, by contrast, is computed once per tax return regardless of how many students qualify, capped at $2,000 total, and is entirely nonrefundable, so it can only reduce a taxpayer's liability to zero. The option describing both credits as fully refundable is wrong because only the AOTC has any refundable component, and even that is capped at 40%; the LLC provides no refund beyond reducing tax owed. The option describing the LLC as limited to the first four years is wrong because that four-year limitation actually applies to the AOTC, which generally covers only the first four years of postsecondary education, while the LLC has no such year limit and can be claimed for graduate or professional coursework as well as courses that do not lead to a degree. The option allowing both credits for the same student in the same year is wrong because a taxpayer must choose only one of the two credits per student per year, even if the underlying expenses were not double-counted.

Source: IRS, 'Education credits — AOTC and LLC' (irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/education-credits-aotc-and-llc)

Correct answer: .

Under IRC Section 223, HSA eligibility requires that the individual be covered by a qualifying high-deductible health plan and have no other health coverage that would disqualify them, such as a general-purpose health FSA, a spouse's non-HDHP family coverage, or enrollment in Medicare; contributions made while eligible are deductible above the line, grow tax-free, and can be withdrawn tax-free for qualified medical expenses. The option requiring employer-sponsored coverage of any kind is wrong because HSAs are available to anyone enrolled in a qualifying HDHP, whether obtained through an employer or purchased individually on the marketplace, and ordinary employer coverage that is not a qualifying HDHP does not create HSA eligibility at all. The option requiring Medicare enrollment is wrong because enrolling in any part of Medicare actually disqualifies a person from making new HSA contributions, the opposite of what the option claims. The option requiring itemized deductions is wrong because the HSA deduction is an above-the-line adjustment to income, available to every eligible taxpayer regardless of whether they itemize deductions on Schedule A.

Source: IRS Publication 969 (2025), Health Savings Accounts and Other Tax-Favored Health Plans; IRS Rev. Proc. 2024-25 (2025 HSA limits)

Correct answer: .

The $25,000 special allowance for rental real estate losses of an actively participating individual is reduced by 50% of the amount by which MAGI exceeds $100,000; at $120,000 of MAGI, the excess is $20,000, so the allowance is reduced by $10,000 (50% of $20,000), leaving $15,000 that can offset nonpassive income. The option claiming the allowance is unavailable once MAGI exceeds $100,000 is wrong because $100,000 is only the point at which the phase-out begins, not where the allowance is fully eliminated; the allowance does not disappear completely until MAGI reaches $150,000. The option claiming the full $25,000 always applies for an active participant is wrong because active participation is what makes the allowance available at all — as opposed to full real-estate-professional status, which removes the passive-loss limitation entirely — but active participation alone does not exempt the taxpayer from the MAGI-based phase-out of that allowance. The option describing a flat $12,500 cap for all single taxpayers is wrong because $12,500 is specifically the maximum allowance for a married taxpayer filing separately who lived apart from their spouse all year, not a limit that applies to single filers.

Source: IRS Publication 925 (2025), Passive Activity and At-Risk Rules; IRS Instructions for Form 8582

Correct answer: .

When a taxpayer's combined Social Security tax withholding from two or more unrelated employers exceeds the annual wage-base maximum, the excess is claimed directly as a credit on Schedule 3 of Form 1040, which flows through to increase the refund or reduce the balance due; this situation arises because each employer withholds correctly based only on the wages it paid, with no visibility into wages the employee earned elsewhere. The option requiring the taxpayer to contact the higher-withholding employer for a corrected W-2 is wrong because neither employer made an error — each properly withheld up to the wage base on its own wages — so there is nothing to correct on either W-2. The option claiming the excess is simply forfeited is wrong because the credit mechanism exists precisely to return this type of over-withholding to the taxpayer. The option requiring Form 843 is wrong because that form is used when a single employer mistakenly withholds Social Security tax beyond the wage base on its own payroll, an employer error; the multiple-employer scenario is resolved directly on the tax return without a separate refund-claim form.

Source: IRS Topic no. 608, Excess Social Security and RRTA Tax Withheld; Instructions for Schedule 3 (Form 1040) (2025)

Correct answer: .

For NOLs arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2020, IRC Section 172 generally eliminates the carryback (aside from a narrow farming-loss exception) and instead allows the loss to be carried forward indefinitely, but in any year it is used, the NOL deduction cannot offset more than 80% of taxable income for that year, computed without regard to the NOL deduction itself. The option describing a 2-year carryback, 20-year carryforward, and full offset in each year is wrong because that describes the pre-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act regime, which no longer generally applies to post-2020 NOLs. The option claiming the loss must be used entirely in the year it arises or is permanently lost is wrong because current law specifically permits an indefinite carryforward; the loss is not lost simply because it exceeds current-year income. The option limiting the NOL to offsetting only self-employment tax is wrong because the NOL deduction reduces regular taxable income for income tax purposes; self-employment tax is a separate tax computed on net earnings from self-employment and is not affected by an NOL deduction at all.

Source: 26 U.S.C. Section 172; IRS Instructions for Form 172 (2025)

Correct answer: .

IRC Section 911 offers two independent ways to become a 'qualified individual' eligible for the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (up to $130,000 for 2025): the bona fide residence test, which requires an uninterrupted period abroad that includes an entire tax year, or the physical presence test, which requires being physically present in a foreign country or countries for at least 330 full days during any period of 12 consecutive months; meeting either test alone is sufficient. The option claiming bona fide residence is the only path is wrong because the physical presence test is an equally valid, independent alternative that does not require a full tax year of foreign residence. The option requiring renunciation of U.S. citizenship is wrong because Section 911 applies specifically to U.S. citizens (and certain resident aliens) who remain citizens; renouncing citizenship is unrelated to exclusion eligibility and instead raises entirely separate expatriation tax consequences. The option claiming automatic qualification for any citizen working abroad is wrong because eligibility is never automatic — the individual must actually satisfy one of the two specific tests; performing work outside the United States alone is not enough.

Source: IRC Section 911; IRS, 'Figuring the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion'

Correct answer: .

Under IRC Section 170, cash contributions to a public charity are deductible up to 60% of AGI, while contributions of long-term capital gain property, such as appreciated stock held more than one year, are limited to 30% of AGI; in either case, any contribution amount that exceeds the applicable limit for the year is not lost but may be carried forward and deducted for up to five subsequent tax years. The option applying a uniform 30% ceiling to both types of contributions is wrong because cash contributions to public charities receive the more generous 60% ceiling, not the lower rate that applies to appreciated property. The option reversing the two percentages, capping the stock donation at 60% and the cash donation at 30%, is wrong because it inverts the actual assignment; cash always receives the higher percentage limit of the two. The option claiming neither contribution is subject to any percentage limitation is wrong because AGI-based percentage limitations apply even to gifts made to public charities, which in fact receive the most favorable limits available under Section 170, compared to the lower limits that apply to gifts to private foundations.

Source: IRS Publication 526 (2025), Charitable Contributions

Correct answer: .

IRC Section 121 requires a taxpayer to satisfy both an ownership test and a use test: the home must have been owned for at least 24 months and used as the taxpayer's principal residence for at least 24 months, and both tests must be met at some point during the 5-year period ending on the date of sale, though the qualifying periods need not overlap. Here the taxpayer met the 24-month ownership test but accumulated only 18 months of qualifying use before converting the home to a rental, so the use test fails and no exclusion is available. The option ignoring any use requirement is wrong because Section 121 conditions the exclusion on actual use as a principal residence, not merely on holding title. The option prorating half of the exclusion for partial use is wrong because Section 121's ownership and use tests are pass/fail thresholds, not proportional; falling short of 24 months of use eliminates the exclusion entirely rather than reducing it by half, absent a separate reduced-exclusion exception for specific hardship circumstances that does not apply on these facts. The option requiring ownership and use for the full 5-year period is wrong because the statute only requires 24 months of each within that 5-year window, not continuous occupancy for the entire period.

Source: IRS Topic no. 701, Sale of your home (irs.gov/taxtopics/tc701)

Correct answer: .

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act raised the overall combined limit on the itemized deduction for state and local income, sales, and property taxes under IRC Section 164(b)(6) from $10,000 to $40,000 ($20,000 for married taxpayers filing separately) for tax years 2025 through 2029, with the cap reduced, but not below $10,000, for taxpayers whose MAGI exceeds $500,000. Since this couple's MAGI of $300,000 is below that phase-down threshold, the full $40,000 cap applies to their combined state and local tax deduction. The option asserting the increase applies only to single filers is wrong because the statute raises the combined cap for joint filers to the same $40,000 figure, with a separate $20,000 cap only for married-filing-separately taxpayers, not a rule that excludes joint filers from any increase. The option describing a $20,000 joint-filer cap is wrong because $20,000 is the figure that applies specifically to married-filing-separately taxpayers under the amended statute, not to a couple filing a joint return. The option claiming the limitation was fully repealed is wrong because the amendment increased and eventually reverts the cap rather than eliminating it; a $10,000 cap resumes after the 2029 tax year.

Source: 2025 Instructions for Schedule A (Form 1040), Itemized Deductions (irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040sca.pdf); IRS Topic no. 503, Deductible taxes

Correct answer: .

Under IRC Section 1211(b), an individual may deduct net capital losses against ordinary income only up to $3,000 per year ($1,500 for married taxpayers filing separately); any net capital loss beyond that amount is not lost but, under IRC Section 1212(b), carries forward indefinitely to future tax years, where it retains its original short-term or long-term character and is used to offset capital gains first before any further amount is again deductible against ordinary income up to the annual limit. Here, $3,000 of the $12,000 loss offsets ordinary income in 2025, and the remaining $9,000 carries forward with no expiration date. The option allowing the entire $12,000 loss against ordinary income in one year is wrong because Section 1211(b) caps that annual offset at $3,000 regardless of the total loss. The option denying any deduction at all is wrong because the $3,000 annual offset against ordinary income is exactly what Section 1211(b) permits, not merely an offset against future capital gains. The option describing a permanent loss of the excess after three years is wrong because Section 1212(b) imposes no time limit on the carryforward for an individual taxpayer; the balance can carry forward for as many years as needed to be fully absorbed.

Source: IRS Topic no. 409, Capital gains and losses (irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409)

Correct answer: .

IRC Section 32(i) denies the Earned Income Tax Credit entirely to any otherwise-eligible taxpayer, regardless of filing status or number of qualifying children, whose disqualified investment income (taxable and tax-exempt interest, dividends, net capital gains, and certain rental or royalty income) exceeds an annually adjusted limit, which is $11,950 for the 2025 tax year; this is a hard cutoff rather than a gradual reduction, so a single dollar over the limit eliminates the credit completely. The option limiting the rule to taxpayers without a qualifying child is wrong because Section 32(i) applies to every EITC claimant regardless of qualifying children. The option describing a dollar-for-dollar reduction is wrong because the investment income test operates as an all-or-nothing eligibility bar, unlike the separate earned-income and AGI phase-out ranges that do reduce the credit gradually as those amounts rise. The option describing a one-year-in-arrears addback is wrong because the investment income test applies to the same tax year's income and has no deferred or retroactive application to a later return.

Source: IRS Publication 596 (2025), Earned Income Credit (irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p596.pdf)

Correct answer: .

IRC Section 162(l) allows a qualifying self-employed individual to deduct 100% of the premiums paid for health insurance covering themselves, their spouse, and dependents as an above-the-line deduction in computing adjusted gross income, provided the individual (or their spouse) is not eligible to participate in a subsidized employer-sponsored health plan; the deduction is capped at the net earnings from self-employment generated by the specific business under which the plan is established, so it cannot create or increase a business loss. The option requiring the premiums to be claimed only as an itemized medical expense is wrong because Section 162(l) specifically removes this deduction from the itemized-deduction, AGI-floor regime and allows it above the line instead. The option treating the premiums as an offset against self-employment tax on Schedule SE is wrong because the deduction reduces adjusted gross income for income tax purposes but does not reduce net earnings from self-employment for computing SE tax. The option removing any limitation tied to business earnings is wrong because Section 162(l) expressly caps the deduction at the net profit of the business maintaining the plan, unlike an ordinary Schedule C expense that is not subject to such a cap.

Source: Instructions for Form 7206, Self-Employed Health Insurance Deduction (irs.gov)

Correct answer: .

IRC Section 469(c)(7) provides that a taxpayer who performs more than 750 hours of personal services during the year in real property trades or businesses in which they materially participate, where that time exceeds half of all personal services performed in any trade or business, qualifies as a real estate professional; for each rental real estate activity in which the taxpayer also materially participates, that activity is removed from the automatic passive-activity characterization entirely, so losses can offset wages, portfolio income, or any other nonpassive income without the $25,000 cap or the MAGI-based phase-out that applies to the separate special allowance under Section 469(i), which is available only to an actively (but not materially) participating owner and phases out completely once MAGI reaches $150,000. The option describing a doubled $50,000 allowance is wrong because Section 469(c)(7) does not enlarge the special allowance; it instead removes the passive characterization for a qualifying real estate professional's material-participation activities altogether. The option categorically excluding real property trades or businesses is wrong because Section 469(c)(7) exists specifically to let qualifying real estate professionals escape the passive characterization that would otherwise apply to rental real estate. The option imposing a 10% ownership-interest requirement on both provisions is wrong because that ownership threshold is a feature of the active-participation standard under Section 469(i), not a requirement of the real estate professional exception itself.

Source: IRS Publication 925 (2025), Passive Activity and At-Risk Rules (irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p925.pdf)

Correct answer: .

IRC Section 461(l) disallows the portion of a noncorporate taxpayer's net aggregate business loss that exceeds the annually indexed threshold ($313,000 for a single filer for 2025) for the current tax year; rather than simply vanishing or offsetting nonbusiness income immediately, the disallowed excess is instead treated as part of the taxpayer's net operating loss and carried forward to the next tax year, where it is absorbed under the ordinary NOL rules of IRC Section 172, including the limitation that generally caps an NOL deduction at 80% of taxable income for the year it is used. The option describing permanent disallowance is wrong because the excess is converted into a usable NOL carryforward rather than being lost forever. The option allowing an immediate offset against nonbusiness income in the current year is wrong because that is precisely the excess amount Section 461(l) disallows for the current year regardless of material participation; the limitation applies even to a materially participating owner. The option describing a two-year carryback is wrong because Section 461(l) provides no carryback mechanism; the disallowed amount only carries forward as an NOL under the post-2017 NOL rules, which themselves generally disallow carrybacks.

Source: Instructions for Form 461 (2025), Limitation on Business Losses (irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i461.pdf)

Correct answer: .

In 2011 the IRS announced, and later formalized through revised procedures, that it would no longer apply a two-year deadline measured from the first collection activity to requests for equitable relief under IRC Section 6015(f); such requests instead remain available within the applicable collection or refund statute of limitations. Traditional innocent spouse relief under Section 6015(b) and separation-of-liability relief under Section 6015(c), by contrast, generally still must be requested within two years of the first collection activity taken against the requesting spouse. Because this taxpayer is now outside that two-year window, equitable relief under Section 6015(f) remains the available avenue, not the other two categories. The option barring all relief outright is wrong because it ignores the specific elimination of the deadline for equitable relief. The option claiming the deadline was eliminated for all three categories simultaneously is wrong because only equitable relief lost its two-year filing deadline; the other two categories kept theirs. The option describing separation-of-liability relief as never subject to a collection-activity deadline is wrong because that category is one of the two that generally still carries the two-year requirement, unlike equitable relief.

Source: IRS, Innocent spouse relief (irs.gov/individuals/innocent-spouse-relief)

Correct answer: .

IRC Section 1272 generally requires a holder of a debt instrument issued with OID to include a ratable portion of the discount in gross income each year as it accrues, computed under a constant-yield method, regardless of whether the holder actually receives any cash payment from the issuer during that year; this is why holders of zero-coupon bonds must report phantom income annually even though all cash is received only at maturity. The option deferring all taxation until sale, redemption, or maturity is wrong because Section 1272 specifically overrides cash-receipt timing and requires annual accrual-based inclusion. The option making current inclusion elective is wrong because the annual accrual of OID is a mandatory rule under Section 1272 for most debt instruments, not a taxpayer election to defer. The option treating the discount as a nontaxable return of investment until a lump-sum inclusion at maturity is wrong because it describes the opposite of how Section 1272 operates; the discount is recognized incrementally over the bond's life rather than being held back and taxed all at once at the end.

Source: IRS Publication 1212 (Rev. December 2025), Guide to Original Issue Discount (OID) Instruments (irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1212.pdf)

Correct answer: .

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repealed the deduction for the payer and the corresponding income inclusion for the recipient under IRC Sections 215 and 71 for any divorce or separation instrument executed after December 31, 2018; because this couple's agreement was executed in 2025, the alimony payments are neither deductible by the paying spouse nor includible in the receiving spouse's gross income. The option describing an above-the-line deduction and matching inclusion is wrong because it describes the pre-2019 rule, which no longer applies to an instrument executed in 2025; that treatment survives only for instruments executed on or before December 31, 2018 that have not been modified to adopt the new rule. The option making the tax treatment elective by mutual written agreement is wrong because Sections 71 and 215 as amended contain no such election mechanism; the post-2018 treatment applies automatically based on the instrument's execution date, not on the parties' preference. The option describing a 50/50 transition split for agreements executed between 2019 and 2025 is wrong because no such proportional transition rule exists; the new all-or-nothing treatment applies in full to any instrument executed after December 31, 2018.

Source: IRS Publication 504 (2025), Divorced or Separated Individuals (irs.gov/publications/p504)

Correct answer: .

A qualifying relative under IRC Section 152 does not have to be related in one of the specifically listed ways if the individual instead lived in the taxpayer's home as a member of the household for the entire year, which the member-of-household test accepts as a substitute for the relationship test; a cousin who is not otherwise related closely enough qualifies this way. The taxpayer also provided more than half the cousin's total support, satisfying the support test, and the cousin's gross income for the year was $4,600, which is below the $5,200 gross income limit that applies for the 2025 tax year, so the gross income test is satisfied too. All the required tests are therefore met, and the dependency claim is valid. The option asserting a cousin can never satisfy the relationship test ignores that living together as a household member for the full year is an accepted alternative path, not a bar. The option citing the gross income limit as a disqualifier is wrong on the numbers: $4,600 is below, not above, the applicable $5,200 threshold. And qualifying relative status is a separate category from qualifying child status; a dependent does not need to be a qualifying child, and there is no age-65 restriction limiting who may be claimed as a qualifying relative.

Source: IRS Publication 501, Dependents, Standard Deduction, and Filing Information (2025); IRC Section 152(d)

Correct answer: .

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act amended IRC Section 1031 so that, for exchanges completed after December 31, 2017, nonrecognition treatment is limited to exchanges of real property held for investment or for use in a trade or business; exchanges of personal property, which were eligible before the amendment, no longer qualify no matter how similar the two items traded are. The vacant land traded for a commercial building is an exchange of real property for other real property, so it still qualifies under the amended statute. The delivery truck exchange involves personal property, so it is fully taxable, and any realized gain or loss must be recognized in the year of the exchange rather than deferred. The option limiting the current version of Section 1031 to depreciable personal property gets the post-2017 scope backwards; the amendment moved coverage toward real property, not personal property. The option claiming both exchanges still qualify describes the pre-2018 law, which applied broadly to almost any business or investment property; that broad scope no longer exists for exchanges completed after 2017. And the option claiming Section 1031 was repealed entirely is incorrect, since the section remains fully in force for qualifying real property exchanges, just narrower in scope than before.

Source: Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Section 13303(c), amending IRC Section 1031; IRS, 'Like-Kind Exchanges Under IRC Section 1031' (FS-2018-11)

Correct answer: .

Gain from selling depreciable real property held long-term is not automatically converted entirely into ordinary income the way Section 1245 recapture treats depreciable personal property. Instead, the portion of the gain attributable to straight-line depreciation previously claimed on the property is labeled unrecaptured Section 1250 gain and is taxed at a maximum rate of 25% rather than at ordinary rates, while any remaining gain that simply reflects the property's appreciation above its original cost continues to be taxed at the regular long-term capital gains rates of 0%, 15%, or 20%. Here that means the $30,000 tied to depreciation is taxed at up to 25%, and the $60,000 of appreciation is taxed at the ordinary long-term capital gains rates. The option treating the whole $90,000 as ordinary income overstates the effect of depreciation on real property; that full ordinary-income result applies to Section 1245 personal property, not Section 1250 real property. The option treating the whole gain as eligible for the 0%/15%/20% rates ignores that straight-line depreciation on real property still triggers the unrecaptured Section 1250 category, it simply avoids the harsher Section 1245 full-ordinary-income treatment that applies to accelerated depreciation on personal property. And the option applying Section 1245 recapture to the depreciation portion misidentifies the governing provision: Section 1245 governs personal property, not the real property described here, which falls under Section 1250's unrecaptured gain rules instead.

Source: IRS, 2025 Instructions for Schedule D (Form 1040), Unrecaptured Section 1250 Gain Worksheet; IRC Section 1(h)(1)(E) and Section 1250

Correct answer: .

Separation-of-liability relief under IRC Section 6015(c) works by allocating an understatement of tax between the two spouses who filed the joint return as though each had filed a separate return, attributing each item on the return to the spouse to whom it actually belongs, and the requesting spouse then owes only the portion of the deficiency traced to items that are properly allocable to them; here, the omitted business income belongs to the former spouse, so it is allocated to that former spouse rather than to the requesting taxpayer. This is a mechanical allocation of an existing deficiency, not a blanket elimination of liability for both parties, so the option describing a full release for both former spouses is wrong. It also does not carry refund rights: unlike innocent spouse relief under Section 6015(b) or equitable relief under Section 6015(f), amounts already paid toward the deficiency are not refunded under separation-of-liability relief, making the refund-rights option incorrect. And the allocation is based on which spouse's items actually caused the understatement, not an automatic even split, so a flat 50/50 division regardless of whose income created the problem misstates how the allocation works.

Source: IRS Publication 971, Innocent Spouse Relief; IRC Section 6015(c) and (d)

Correct answer: .

IRC Section 4973 imposes a 6% excise tax on an excess IRA contribution for the year it is made, and that same 6% tax keeps applying for every subsequent year the excess amount stays in the account uncorrected, because the tax is measured on the excess balance remaining at the end of each year rather than charged only once. The tax stops accruing only once the excess contribution, along with any earnings attributable to it, is actually distributed from the account and included in the taxpayer's income, or otherwise absorbed against a future year's unused contribution room. The option describing a one-time 10% tax confuses this excise tax with the separate 10% additional tax on early distributions under Section 72(t), which is a different provision covering a different situation. The option claiming no tax applies is wrong because Section 4973 is a mandatory statutory excise tax enforced through the taxpayer's own return, specifically Form 5329, not merely a custodial administrative matter. And an excess contribution does not automatically convert into a valid nondeductible contribution; nondeductible contributions still have to fit within the applicable contribution limit, so reporting an over-the-limit amount on Form 8606 does not erase the excise tax exposure.

Source: IRC Section 4973; IRS Form 5329 Instructions (2025), Part III and Part IV

Correct answer: .

The Child and Dependent Care Credit under IRC Section 21 caps eligible work-related care expenses at $3,000 for one qualifying person or $6,000 for two or more qualifying persons, so even though this taxpayer paid $6,500, only $6,000 of it counts toward the credit because there are two qualifying children. The applicable percentage of qualifying expenses ranges from 35% down to a floor of 20%, stepping down as adjusted gross income rises, and once AGI exceeds $43,000 the percentage settles at the 20% floor rather than continuing to decline further or disappearing. Applying 20% to the $6,000 expense cap produces a credit of $1,200. The option applying 35% to the full $6,500 is wrong on two counts: it ignores the $6,000 expense cap for two qualifying persons, and it wrongly assumes the highest percentage applies whenever there is more than one qualifying person rather than depending on AGI. The option describing the credit as fully refundable and uncapped misstates both features: the credit is generally nonrefundable, and it is bounded by the $3,000/$6,000 expense limits regardless of how much is actually paid. And the credit does not disappear once AGI exceeds $43,000; it simply stops declining and remains available at the 20% floor rate.

Source: IRS Publication 503 (2025), Child and Dependent Care Expenses; IRC Section 21

Correct answer: .

The foreign earned income exclusion under Section 911 and the foreign tax credit under Section 901 can both be used by the same taxpayer in the same year, but never on the same dollar of income, because allowing a credit for foreign tax paid on income that was already excluded from U.S. taxation would let the taxpayer benefit twice from the same income: once by excluding it entirely, and again by using the associated foreign tax to offset U.S. tax on other income. Foreign tax attributable to the excluded wages therefore cannot be claimed as a credit, but foreign tax paid on income that was not excluded, such as the foreign-source interest here, remains eligible for the credit in the ordinary way. The option allowing a credit for tax on the excluded wages but not the interest has the rule backwards: it is precisely the tax tied to excluded income that is disallowed, while tax on non-excluded income remains creditable. The option allowing a credit for both types of foreign tax ignores the no-double-benefit rule that disallows credit for tax on excluded income. And electing the Section 911 exclusion in one year does not create any permanent, all-years bar on ever using the foreign tax credit; the restriction applies only to foreign tax tied to income actually excluded in a given year.

Source: IRS, Instructions for Form 1116, Foreign Tax Credit; IRS, Instructions for Form 2555, Foreign Earned Income; IRC Sections 911(d)(6) and 901

Correct answer: .

Under IRC Section 221, the student loan interest deduction, capped at $2,500 of interest paid, is reduced (phased out) rather than immediately eliminated once a taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income falls within an applicable range; for 2025, that range for a single filer runs from $85,000 to $100,000. Because this taxpayer's MAGI of $92,000 sits inside that range, the deduction is not lost outright but is instead reduced proportionally based on how far MAGI has moved through the range, applied against the taxpayer's otherwise-allowable amount, here the full $1,800 actually paid since that is below the $2,500 statutory cap. The option treating the deduction as fully eliminated at $85,000 is wrong because that figure only marks where the phase-out begins, not where it reaches zero; full elimination does not occur until MAGI reaches $100,000 for a single filer. The option claiming MAGI has no effect up to $100,000 ignores that the phase-out is already operating well before that ceiling is reached. And the $85,000-to-$100,000 range does apply to single filers specifically; the wider $170,000-to-$200,000 range is the one reserved for taxpayers filing a joint return, so the phase-out is not limited to joint filers only.

Source: IRS Publication 970 (2025), Tax Benefits for Education, Chapter 4, Student Loan Interest Deduction; IRC Section 221

Correct answer: .

Under IRC Section 165(h)(5), an individual's personal casualty or theft loss on property not connected to a trade or business or a profit-seeking transaction is deductible only if the loss is attributable to a federally declared disaster, and this rule has no exception for a loss that is otherwise sudden and unexpected but purely local and personal in origin, such as an electrical fire confined to one taxpayer's own garage with no presidential disaster declaration covering the area. Because this fire was not part of any declared disaster, the loss is simply not deductible, regardless of how genuinely accidental and unforeseen it was. The option allowing a deduction for any sudden, unexpected, unusual event describes the law as it existed before this rule took effect, when ordinary casualty losses of that kind were deductible without a disaster-declaration requirement; that broader standard no longer governs personal-use property losses under the current rule. The option applying the $100-per-event and 10%-of-AGI reductions is also incorrect here because those reductions only come into play once a loss is otherwise deductible in the first place, and this loss never clears the federally-declared-disaster threshold needed to be deductible at all. And casualty losses were not repealed outright with no exceptions; losses tied to a federally declared disaster, or losses used to offset a taxpayer's personal casualty gains, remain deductible.

Source: IRS, Instructions for Form 4684, Casualties and Thefts (2025); IRC Section 165(h)(5)

Correct answer: .

IRC Section 72(t) imposes a 10% additional tax on the taxable amount of a distribution from a qualified retirement plan or traditional IRA taken before the account owner reaches age 59 1/2, unless the distribution falls within one of the specific exceptions listed in Section 72(t)(2), such as death, total and permanent disability, substantially equal periodic payments, certain unreimbursed medical expenses, qualified higher education expenses, or a limited first-home purchase amount for an IRA. Since this taxpayer is 48, took a lump-sum distribution rather than a series of substantially equal periodic payments, and does not fit any of the listed exceptions, the full $40,000 taxable distribution is subject to the 10% additional tax on top of the regular income tax already owed on it. The option citing the 6% excise tax under Section 4973 confuses this early-distribution tax with the entirely separate excise tax that applies to excess contributions remaining in an IRA, which is not the situation described here. The option claiming Section 72(t) applies only to employer plans and not IRAs is incorrect because the statute explicitly extends the same 10% additional tax to early distributions from traditional IRAs as well as qualified employer plans. And the tax is not a flat dollar penalty; it is calculated as a percentage, 10%, of the taxable distribution amount, so a fixed $10,000 figure regardless of distribution size misstates how the tax is computed.

Source: IRS Topic no. 557, Additional tax on early distributions from traditional and Roth IRAs; IRC Section 72(t)