vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
If I recall correctly off of their quarterly reporting, their major expense was Admin/Overhead.  I think it comprised of half of their expenses.  My disclaimer is that I just took a quick look at their financial report and might be remembering incorrectly.
Your expenses must have a business connection – that is, you must have paid or incurred deductible expenses while performing services as an employee of your employer. Two examples of this are the reasonable expenses of moving your possessions from your former home to your new home, and traveling from your former home to your new home. You must adequately account to your employer for these expenses within a reasonable period of time. You must return any excess reimbursement or allowance within a reasonable period of time. Also what is interesting is the table regarding how to report IF your Form W-2 shows... your entire reimbursement reported as wages in box 1 AND you have... moving expenses THEN... file Form 3903 showing all allowable expenses,* but do not show any reimbursements.
"I'm assuming that you're in the US.  In that case, the answer is that it depends on how your company set up its reimbursement plan.  The IRS recognizes ""accountable"" and ""nonaccountable"" plans.  Accountable plans have to meet certain requirements.  Anything else is nonaccountable.  If you are reimbursed according to an accountable plan, this is not income and should not be reported to the IRS at all.  If you are reimbursed under a nonaccountable plan, then this is income but you might be able to get a deduction on your tax return if you itemize. Most established companies have accountable plans for normal business expenses. More detail from IRS: http://www.tax.gov/TaxabilityCertainFringeBenefits/pdf/Accountable_v_Nonaccountable_Plans_Methods_of_Reimbursing_Employees_for_Expense.pdf"
"I believe there is an overtime meal allowance. That is, if an employee works ""overtime"" (defined as 7:00 p.m. for a 9:00 start, or ten-plus hours after the shift starts), the company can provide a non-taxable meal free of charge, or give a ""reasonable"" allowance ($15-$20) that must be spent outside on a meal (no drinks). This is because the employee is working extra hours at the convenience of the company. Lunches can be subsidized. That is the company can provide lunch on company premises, and must charge employees the direct costs of the food and preparing it, but can forego charging for ""overhead"" (e.g. the implied rent for the lunch facility) and profit."
It would be unusual but it is possible that the expenses could be very high compared to your income. The IRS in pub 529 explains the deduction. You can deduct only unreimbursed employee expenses that are: Paid or incurred during your tax year, For carrying on your trade or business of being an employee, and Ordinary and necessary. An expense is ordinary if it is common and accepted in your trade,   business, or profession. An expense is necessary if it is appropriate   and helpful to your business. An expense doesn't have to be required   to be considered necessary. The next part lists examples. I have cut the list down to highlight ones that could be large. You may be able to deduct the following items as unreimbursed employee   expenses. Damages paid to a former employer for breach of an employment contract. Job search expenses in your present occupation. Legal fees related to your job. Licenses and regulatory fees. Malpractice insurance premiums. Research expenses of a college professor. Rural mail carriers' vehicle expenses. Tools and supplies used in your work. Work clothes and uniforms if required and not suitable for everyday use. Work-related education. If the term of employment was only part of the year, one or more of the these could dwarf your income for the year. Before deducting something that large be sure you can document it. I believe the IRS computers would flag the return and I wouldn't be surprised if they ask for additional proof.
Please do not focus solely on income tax, and ignore all of the other taxes that businesses need to pay.  Payroll taxes for example.  If I make $15/hr, I cost my employer more than this in reality.
"The US government requires corporations to follow certain accounting standards, while exempting itself. For example, companies financial reports must reflect the future costs of things like employee pensions, healthcare and other liabilities. So if you own a company and have an obligation to pay someone $100 in ten years, that obligation must be reflected on your current financial statements. Most US governments operate under a cash accounting scheme that don't necessarily recognize the current costs of big future promises. At the State and Local levels, politicians actively and openly flaunt this -- Governors, mayors, etc routinely do things like give employees enhanced benefits (whose costs kick in the down line) or unlimited sick/vacation time accruals with payouts to employees to avoid impacting the short-term fiscal picture.  As an example, a New York City tabloid ran a big story a few years ago about certain transit authorities -- the standards for disability pensions were so low that 95% of employees were categorized as ""disabled"" and were receiving pensions that were in many cases greater than the employees salary while working."
The company will have to pay 20% tax on its profits. Doesn't matter how these profits are earned. Profits = Income minus all money you spend to get the income.  However, you can't just take the profits out of the company. The company can pay you a salary, on which income tax, national insurance, and employer's national insurance have to be paid at the usual rate. The company can pay you a dividend, on which tax has to be paid. And the company can pay money into the director's pension fund, which is tax free.  Since the amount of company revenue can be of interest, I'd be curious myself what the revenue of such a company would be. And if the company makes losses, I'm sure HMRC won't allow you to get any tax advantages from such losses.
As I understand it... Generally housing can't be considered a business expense unless taken at your employer's explicit direction, for the good of the business rather than the employee. Temporary assignment far enough from you home office that commuting or occasional hotel nights are impractical,  maybe.  In other words, if they wouldn't be (at least theoretically) willing to let you put it on an expense account, you probably can't claim it here.
In order to grow the way they do without recording profits, they need to find costs (or cut prices). The revenue is turning over because it's being paid out all over the place. Either those companies are running on razor thin margins, or they're paying taxes. There's also payroll taxes for the 270,000 workers.
You can only deduct (with the 2% AGI threshold) expenses that: You've actually incurred. I.e.: you actually paid for equipment or services provided and can show receipts for the payment. At the request of the employer. I.e.: you didn't just decide on your own to buy a new book or take a class, your employer told you to. With business necessity. I.e.: it was in order for you to do your job. And you were not reimbursed by your employer. I.e.: you went somewhere and spent your after tax money on something employer explicitly told you to pay for, and you didn't get reimbursed for that. From your story - these conditions don't hold for you. As I said in the comments - I strongly suggest you talk to a lawyer. Your story just doesn't make any sense, and I suspect your employer is doing something very fishy here.
"If all of the relocation expenses are paid by your employer to the moving companies, then you should not have any tax liability for those payments. Relocation expenses should be treated as normal business expenses by your employer. Note I emphasize ""should"" because it's possible that your employer ""could"" consider it income to you, but companies generally do not go out of their way to classify normal business expenses as income since it costs both them and you more money in taxes. As a side note, the reason your company is paying these expenses directly is probably to lessen the likelihood of these expenses being questioned in an audit (in comparison to if they cut you a reimbursement check which could get more scrutiny)."
Some of the costs you might incur include:
"Companies often provide cafeteria, or catering services, to employees tax-free at subsidized rates. I'll use ""cafeteria"" as an illustration. The IRS says that in order to avoid lunch being taxed as income, the employees must pay the ""direct costs"" of the lunch, food and labor. In addition to those costs, cafeterias add two more items to come up with the total tab; ""overhead,"" (the cost of renting the space), and of course, profit. The company can waive the last two, and charge employees only materials and labor. That's why subsidized cafeteria food can cost as little as half of what it would cost elsewhere."
Expense accounts are closed into equity.  Same with revenue.   So an increase in an expense means lower equity (lower retained earnings since there is more expense). Ergo, decrease equity and increase a liability. Increase a liability since it was accrued, which is usually used specifically to refer to things that kind of just happen in the background. Aka the firm most likely didn't pay cash for that right then and there so increase a payable.
"According to this post on TurboTax forums, you could deduct it as an ""Unreimbursed Employee"" expense. This would seem consistent with the IRS Guidelines on such deductions: An expense is ordinary if it is common and accepted in your trade, business, or profession. An expense is necessary if it is appropriate and helpful to your business. An expense does not have to be required to be considered necessary. Office rent is not listed explicitly among the examples of deductible unreimbursed employee expenses, but this doesn't mean it's not allowed.  Of course you should check with a tax professional if you want to be sure."
My company did not have income of $1000 and have a $500 expense Why not? Your company received $1000 from you, and based on its agreement with the other company - transferred out half of it. How does it not translate to having $1000 income and $500 expense? When I run a report I want to see that my business has $500 of income not $1000 with a $500 expense You can write in your reports whatever you want, but if you want to see the real picture, then that is exactly what you should be expecting. That said, transferring money from yourself to your company is generally not considered income. You can have it booked as owner's equity, or a owner's loan if the company is required to repay. Unless you're paying to your company for some services provided or assets transferred, that is.
$1 more an hour = $160 a month...a few matching expenses and it probably increases payroll less than $200 an employee a month. Does anyone really believe that there is no money in personal care/health care? For evey 5 employees it is $1K more a month. That kind of money is next to insignificant in the industry, and the bosses probably spent more on that on food on the company card.
Many years ago, I worked for a medium sized company that developed HR software for medium sized companies. Their own HR department bought and used another company's HR system, arguing that internal billing costs made the in-house system too expensive. The CEO said this was a sensible business decision. I was quite surprised.
Is this right? The example is slightly off. Google would be running a cafeteria that can be subsidized. Employees pay an amount to buy food. Not every one spends the same amount or eats the same amount of food. If someone doesn't use cafeteria; he doesn't get more money. For example, suppose John Doe makes $100,000 a year taxed at a rate of 20%, for a take home pay of $80,000. He spends $10,000 on food. His employer Corporation decides to give him all of his food and deduct it as a business expense - costing them $10,000. But now they can pay John Doe an amount so his take home pay will be reduced by $10,000 - $87,500 The company is now spending $97500 employing John Doe, for a savings of $2500$. If a scheme is devised specifically to evade taxes; then it is invalid. In this case Bill may buy groceries worth only $5000. So keep track of which employee buys how much groceries in added cost of Google. Plus one can't really call it a business expense.
"Some of the 45,000 might be taxable. The question is how was the stipend determined. Was it based on the days away? The mile driven? The cities you worked in? The IRS has guidelines regarding what is taxable in  IRS Pub 15 Per diem or other fixed allowance.  You may reimburse your employees by travel days, miles, or some other   fixed allowance under the applicable revenue procedure. In these   cases, your employee is considered to have accounted to you if your   reimbursement doesn't exceed rates established by the Federal   Government. The 2015 standard mileage rate for auto expenses was 57.5   cents per mile. The rate for 2016 is 54 cents per mile. The government per diem rates for meals and lodging in the continental   United States can be found by visiting the U.S. General Services   Administration website at www.GSA.gov and entering ""per diem rates"" in   the search box. Other than the amount of these expenses, your   employees' business expenses must be substantiated (for example, the   business purpose of the travel or the number of business miles   driven). For information on substantiation methods, see Pub. 463. If the per diem or allowance paid exceeds the amounts substantiated,   you must report the excess amount as wages. This excess amount is   subject to income tax with-holding and payment of social security,   Medicare, and FUTA taxes. Show the amount equal to the substantiated   amount (for example, the nontaxable portion) in box 12 of Form W-2   using code “L"""
One way to determine compensation is as a percentage per actual hour billed (and paid by client). Very common place to start is 33% for company overhead/administration (insurance, taxes, office expense, etc), 33% for sales commission/costs (roughly half as direct sales commission, half for marketing), 33% as gross 1099 pay  compensation to the employee.
It depends on the business entity. If the entity is a sole proprietorship or a general partnership, the individual are considered to be the business. There are no shares, and so yes, the owner would have to take on 75% of the expenses. For example, in the event of a lawsuit, if the claimant were awarded $1,000,000, the 75% partner would be personally liable for $750,000. In the event of a corporation, there are shares, so the responsibility is on the management of the company, not the owners, to come up with money for the expenses of the business. That money can come from the business' capital, which is the money owners have put in. Basically, for a corporate entity, the owner is not responsible for 75% of expenses, for a partnership, yes, they are.
This is what happens when you privatize the costs of maternity leave. The law is that maternity leave exists and it covers all employment. Why then ,is it not paid by the state with taxes on the employer, but instead paid by the employer on a case by case basis.  This means that it's possible for one employer to have more expenses on maternity leave than another employer thus incentivizing not hiring potential mothers.  Edit: We know how much maternity leave costs businesses each year. So just add that extra sum to the taxes paid by employers and release them from having to pay people on maternity leave.
Reporting costs on a fully-loaded basis means that the business should report costs directly and indirectly associated with its product and the relevant indirect costs, e.g. overhead, indirect charges, etc. If you're looking at a company in general, the fully-loaded cost basis of the firm is essentially all costs related to the product(s) it offers. In economics/accounting 101 terms, reporting costs on a fully-loaded basis means reporting both the fixed and variable costs associated with production. Fixed costs are costs that remain constant regardless of how much the firm produces, e.g. general overhead like rent, managers' salaries, etc. while variable costs are per-unit costs that may change as the firm increases or decreases production, e.g. the cost of materials, hourly wages, etc.
Last I checked, all business expenses in regards to  * Office Supplies * Stationary * Phone service * Marketing  are all tax deductible....so how does cutting those costs save money when you'll get that money back via the corporate tax code?
There is a dependent care spending account for child care related expenses. Also Medical and Dental expenses over a certain % of your income maybe deductible on your tax return.
"You should seriously just stop talking. The term legacy employees refers to legacy cost structures. Costs that linger from a time when the competitive environment was different than it is today are referred to as legacy costs. It is not derogatory.   Take airlines, for example. Airlines used to have incredible legacy costs from unionized employees incurred at a time when the airline industry was regulated. Regulation kept new airlines from starting up, so airlines could very easily afford to pay for pensions, huge benefits, massive salaries, etc. The few airlines in existence then had control over the industry.  Then the airlines were deregulated and anyone could start one up. Suddenly, the airlines that could afford massive pensions in the days where they effectively controlled pricing could no longer afford these pensions and benefits when competitors did not offer the same benefits to their employees. Hence, every single ""legacy"" airline went bankrupt over the next few decades."
Any money that ScottMcGready gives to the company is a personal loan that must be repaid by the company at some point without tax consequences. Any money that the company gives to ScottMcGready is either salary (Scott pays income tax, company counts this as cost), or a dividend (Scott pays dividend tax), or a loan (Scott must repay the loan).
You cannot deduct expenses directly.  However, your employer may participate in programs to allow you to make a pretax deduction capped at $255 per month to pay for certain commuting expenses.  For personal car commuters the main category is to pay for parking.   IRS guidelines Qualified Transportation Benefits This exclusion applies to the following benefits. A ride in a commuter highway vehicle between the employee's home and   work place. A transit pass. Qualified parking. Qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement. You may provide an employee with any one or more of the first three   benefits at the same time. However, the exclusion for qualified   bicycle commuting reimbursement isn't available in any month the   employee receives any of the other qualified transportation benefits.
No, it doesn't, but overhead of a worker adds up. We are talking taxes, health insurance now, and tons of restrictions and safety issues that OSHA would come after me for, for being an employer. That, and I run the risk of getting an employee that manages to crash tooling all the time, which I lose money on. If I fire him, I'd have to cover unemployment, and the list goes on. That's something that was not mentioned in the article.
You should be recording the reimbursement as a negative expense on the original account the expense was recorded. Let's assume you have a $100 expense and $100 salary. Total $200 paycheck. You will have something like this In the reports, it will show that the expense account will have $0 ($100 + ($100)), while income account will have $100 (salary).
The company can not collect interest on that money.  The bank that processes the company payroll will give the company lower fees to use the debit card because the bank will then be able to charge the employees fees for low balance, out of network atm, and overdraft.
"*Most* companies have gross margins, because it's not *just* tied to cost of ""goods,"" but cost of *revenue.* FedEx has costs of revenue and therefore a gross margin.  In some cases, however, yes, some companies will not have a cost directly tied to revenue. These are services companies in which an employees salary is by no means tied to the revenue (i.e. a salary of $50k will still do $100k of work or $1M of work with no change).   EDIT: Work has me looking at American Addiction Centers (AAC), which is an example of a company without cost of revenue/goods."
No, you cannot. You can only deduct expenses that the employer required from you, are used solely for the employer's (not your!) benefit, you were not reimbursed for them and they're above the 2% AGI threshold. And that - only if you're itemizing your deductions.
"Your wages are an expense to your employer and are therefore 100% tax deductible in the business income.  The company should not be paying tax on that, so your double-tax scenario, as described, isn't really correct. [The phrase ""double taxation"" with respect to US corporations usually comes into play with dividends.  In that case, however, it's the shareholders (owners) that pay double.  The answer to ""why?"" in that case can only be ""because it's the law.""]"
"What you are describing is a Chart of Accounts.  It's a structure used by accountants to categorise accounts into sub-categories below the standard Asset/Liability/Income/Expense structure. The actual categories used will vary widely between different people and different companies.  Every person and company is different, whilst you may be happy to have a single expense account called ""Lunch"", I may want lots of expense accounts to distinguish between all the different restaurants I eat at regularly.  Companies will often change their chart of accounts over time as they decide they want to capture more (or less) detail on where a particular type of Expense is really being spent. All of this makes any attempt to create a standard (in the strict sense) rather futile.  I have worked at a few places where discussions about how to structure the chart of accounts and what referencing scheme to use can be surprisingly heated!  You'll have to come up with your own system, but I can provide a few common recommendations: If you're looking for some simple examples to get started with, most personal finance software (e.g. GnuCash) will offer to create an example chart of accounts when you first start a session."
I agree that the surface explanation is that expenses used to generate income are deducted, however there clearly is a double standard in how is applied.  For example I cannot deduct my car even though I use it primarily for commuting to work (I would consider that income generation), yet companies are allowed to deduct corporate jets. I can't deduct meals when I ate out with professional acquainted where much of the conversations are related to my profession and so directly relevant to my income, yet businesses can claim sending their executives to a country club because business was discussed or it was a team building excise. Etc etc.
He spends $10,000 on food. His employer Corporation decides to give him all of his food and deduct it as a business expense - costing them $10,000. But now they can pay John Doe an amount so his take home pay will be reduced by $10,000 - $87,500 The company is now spending $97500 employing John Doe, for a savings of $2500$. This would be an audit prone administrative nightmare. Either You need John to submit receipts for reimbursement up to the $10,000 agreed upon amount which would require some kind of administrative staff, or After a very short period of time John forgets the abstract value of the food cost arrangement, that is only really benefiting the employer in the form of lower payroll expense, and is enticed away for more pay somewhere else anyway. The company may be saving $2,500, though again there will be an additional administrative expense of some sort, but John is only saving $500 ($97,500 * 0.20 - $100,000 * 0.20).