vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"You uncle is liable to pay ""Capital-Gains"" tax. Essentially the sale price less of cost would be treated as gains. The gains are taxed at 10% without indexation and 20% with Indexation.  The capital gains tax can be avoided if your uncle invests the gains into specified ""Infrastructure bonds"" or buys another property within a period of 3 years. The funds need to be kept in a separate ""Capital Gains"" account and not a regular savings account till you buy another property within 3 years."
No matter what, you owe taxes on the gains, known as capital gains. How much, depends on how long you invested it for. In your example, each month is treated separately - each month you contribute starts a new clock on that set of investments. If you hold it for longer than a year, the taxes are treated as long-term, and less than a year is short-term. Short term taxes are at your marginal rate, and long term taxes are different, usually 15%. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc400/tc409
If the $882 is reported on W2 as your income then it is added to your taxable income on W2 and is taxed as salary. Your basis then becomes $5882. If it is not reported on your W2 - you need to add it yourself. Its salary income. If its not properly reported on W2 it may have some issues with FICA, so I suggest talking to your salary department to verify it is. In any case, this is not short term capital gain. Your broker may or may not be aware of the reporting on W2, and if they report the basis as $5000 on your 1099, when you fill your tax form you can add a statement that it is ESPP reported on W2 and change the basis to correct one. H&R Block and TurboTax both support that (you need to chose the correct type of investment there).
Without making specific recommendations, it is worthwhile to point out the differing tax treatments for a Roth IRA: investments in a Roth IRA will not be taxed when you withdraw them during retirement (unless they change the law on that or something crazy). So if you are thinking about investing in some areas with high risk and high potential reward (e.g. emerging market stocks) then the Roth IRA might be the place to do it. That way, if the investment works out, you have more money in the account that won't ever be taxed. We can talk about the possible risks of certain kinds of investments, but this is not an appropriate forum to recommend for or against them specifically. Healthcare stocks are subject to political risk in the current regulatory climate. BRICs are subject to political risks regarding the political and business climate in the relevant nations, and the growth of their economies need not correspond with growth in the companies you hold in your portfolio. Energy stocks are subject to the world economic climate and demand for oil, unless you're talking alternative-energy stocks, which are subject to political risk regarding their subsidies and technological risk regarding whether or not their technologies pan out. It is worth pointing out that any ETF you invest in will have a prospectus, and that prospectus will contain a section discussing the risks which could affect your investment. Read it before investing! :)
Cap gains and qualified dividend taxes are the same (see link below)  First let's assume were talking about a taxable account (in a tax-deferred/exempt account taxes don't really matter) capital gains taxes are only realized at the end sale, so share buybacks will not have any adverse until the gains are realized, which in theory should be as far out as possible, whereas dividends are taxed in the year they are received. because of the compounding the buybacks are better than the dividends (which pay tax up-front versus on the back end with buybacks). Yes investors are irrational, but I'm trying to take the long-term rational approach. Additionally, dividends are taxed at cap gains rates if the position is held 60+ days, so all else held equal, share buybacks are more tax-efficient in the long-run.   https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Investments-and-Taxes/Guide-to-Taxes-on-Dividends/INF19201.html
You're last paragraph sums up what I mean exactly. Businesses will continue to make investments that try think make sense. Taxes have an pact on what makes sense. This combo is what we should be discussing. Thanks for adding to the conversation.
&gt; they can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate, whereas dividends are subject to a higher tax rate.  That's not true, is it? I'm fairly sure they're taxed at the same rate now. Buybacks are still better for shareholders, though, because those who don't want to sell have the option of just holding the stock. With dividends, everyone gets a dividend and the associated tax hit, whether they want it or not.  Edit: Oh, right. Ordinary dividends are taxed as ordinary income; qualified dividends are not. But aren't qualified dividends the modal type?
"'Note that ""to keep an investor from lowering their tax bill"" is not an explanation'. Well, yes it is. In fact  it is the only explanation. The rule plainly exists to prevent someone from realizing a loss when their economic situation remains unchanged before/after a sale. Now, you might say 'but I have suffered a loss, even if it is unrealized!' But, would you want to pay tax on unrealized gains? The tax system still caters to reducing the tax impact of investments, particularly capital investments. Part and parcel with the system of taxing gains only when realized, is that you can recognize losses only when realized. Are there other ways to 'artificially' reduce taxable income? Yes. But the goal of a good tax system should be to reduce those opportunities. Whether you agree that it is fair for the government to prevent this tax-saving opportunity, when others exist, is another question. But that is why the rule exists."
"A nondividend distribution is typically a return of capital; in other words, you're getting money back that you've contributed previously (and thus would have been taxed upon in previous years when those funds were first remunerated to you). Nondividend distributions are nontaxable, so they do not represent income from capital gains, but do effect your cost basis when determining the capital gain/loss once that capital gain/loss is realized. As an example, publicly-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) generally distribute a return of capital back to shareholders throughout the year as a nondividend distribution. This is a return of a portion of the shareholder's original capital investment, not a share of the REITs profits, so it is simply getting a portion of your original investment back, and thus, is not income being received (I like to refer to it as ""new income"" to differentiate). However, the return of capital does change the cost basis of the original investment, so if one were to then sell the shares of the REIT (in this example), the basis of the original investment has to be adjusted by the nondividend distributions received over the course of ownership (in other words, the cost basis will be reduced when the shares are sold). I'm wondering if the OP could give us some additional information about his/her S-Corp. What type of business is it? In the course of its business and trade activity, does it buy and sell securities (stocks, etc.)? Does it sell assets or business property? Does it own interests in other corporations or partnerships (sales of those interests are one form of capital gain). Long-term capital gains are taxed at rates lower than ordinary income, but the IRS has very specific rules as to what constitutes a capital gain (loss). I hate to answer a question with a question, but we need a little more information before we can weigh-in on whether you have actual capital gains or losses in the course of your S-Corporation trade."
"&gt; You bring up the Feds but that confounds the issue because now we have to talk about monetary policy, taxation is fiscal policy  If the goal is for more investments, you have to account for loans and money supply. Far more investment is done on issued bonds than on retained profits.  &gt;the firm has more money they are going to spend it somewhere  That's an oversimplification... they'll spend to maximize profit, not to grow GDP. The two are related, but the first isn't always optimal to the second... if a firm captures monopoly, that's bad for GDP.  The examples in the link are relevant in that context. They're only a part of the economy (""92 publicly held U.S. corporations that reported a U.S. profit every year from 2008 through 2015""). They're a non-trivial portion of the economy, and represent a large share of who will benefit from reducing corporate taxes. So when you say: &gt;In general lowering taxes increases capital investment regardless of the investment rate  The counter point is that... no the investment rate matters. If spending those taxes produces a higher investment rate, you have to adjust policy accordingly. To know that you have to estimate the investment rate from a marginal reduction in taxes, and compare to the investment rate resulting form your marginal fiscal program spending increase. Saying that ""lowering taxes increases investment"" is insufficient, in the same sense that saying ""infrastructure spending increases investment"" is insufficient."
Well, you won't be double taxed based on what you described. Partners are taxed on income, typically distributions. Your gain in the partnership is not income. However, you were essentially given some money which you elected to invest in the partnership, so you need to pay tax on that money. The question becomes, are you being double taxed in another way? Your question doesn't explain how you invested, but pretty much the options are either a payroll deduction (some amount taken out of X paychecks or a bonus) or some other payment to you that was not treated as a payroll deduction. Given that you got a 1099, that suggests the latter. However, if the money was taken out as a payroll deduction - you've already paid taxes (via your W2)! So, I'd double check on that. Regarding why the numbers don't exactly match up - Your shares in the partnership likely transacted before the partnership valuation. Let's illustrate with an example. Say the partnership is currently worth $1000 with 100 outstanding shares. You put up $1000 and get 100 shares. Partnership is now worth $2000 with 200 outstanding shares. However, after a good year for the firm, it's valuation sets the firm's worth at $3000. Your gain is $1500 not $1000. You can also see if what happened was the firm's valuation went down, your gain would be less than your initial investment. If instead your shares transacted immediately after the valuation, then your gain and your cost to acquire the shares would be the same. So again, I'd suggest double checking on this - if your shares transacted after the valuation, there needs to be an explanation for the difference in your gain. For reference: http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/incorporation-and-legal-structures/partnership-taxes.html And https://www.irs.gov/publications/p541/ar02.html Here you learn the purpose of the gain boxes on your K1 - tracking your capital basis should the partnership sell. Essentially, when the partnership is sold, you as a partner get some money. That money is then taxed.
This is really an extended comment on the last paragraph of @BenMiller's answer. When (the manager of) a mutual fund sells securities that the fund holds for a profit, or receives dividends (stock dividends, bond interest, etc.), the fund has the option of paying taxes on that money (at corporate rates) and distributing the rest to shareholders in the fund, or passing on the entire amount (categorized as dividends, qualified dividends, net short-term capital gains, and net long-term capital gains) to the shareholders who then pay taxes on the money that they receive at their own respective tax rates. (If the net gains are negative, i.e. losses, they are not passed on to the shareholders. See the last paragraph below). A shareholder doesn't have to reinvest the distribution amount into the mutual fund: the option of receiving the money as cash always exists, as does the option of investing the distribution into a different mutual fund in the same family, e.g. invest the distributions from Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund into Vanguard's Total Bond Index Fund (and/or vice versa). This last can be done without needing a brokerage account, but doing it across fund families will require the money to transit through a brokerage account or a personal account. Such cross-transfers can be helpful in reducing the amounts of money being transferred in re-balancing asset allocations as is recommended be done once or twice a year. Those investing in load funds instead of no-load funds should keep in mind that several load funds waive the load for re-investment of distributions but some funds don't: the sales charge for the reinvestment is pure profit for the fund if the fund was purchased directly or passed on to the brokerage if the fund was purchased through a brokerage account. As Ben points out, a shareholder in a mutual fund must pay taxes (in the appropriate categories) on the distributions from the fund even though no actual cash has been received because the entire distribution has been reinvested. It is worth keeping in mind that when the mutual fund declares a distribution (say $1.22 a share), the Net Asset Value per share drops by the same amount (assuming no change in the prices of the securities that the fund holds) and the new shares issued are at this lower price.
Avoid earning enough to risk the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax). Refuse to take the mortgage interest deduction, tax credits for electric vehicles, tax credits for high-efficiency appliances and air conditioners, tax credits for residential solar panel installations. Do not own investments which pay interest, or own stocks where you need to track the ""basis"" (purchase price) of the stocks, nor buy and then sell valuable items that might gain value (where you would need to track the purchase price, the ""basis""). Avoid owning and leasing a rental home for income, deducting businesses expenses and mileage for business purposes, contributions to a retirement plan (outside an employer plan) -- all complicate your tax filing. The solution you truly desire is either a ""Flat Tax"" or the ""Fair Tax"". These solutions would effect either a single tax rate (with no deductions or adjustments to income, yeah right), or a national retail sales tax, which would tax the money spent in the economy regardless of the source of the money (legal, gifts, crime) and there would be no need to report income, or classify it. The largest objection to either is that the tax code might become less ""progressive"" (increasing tax rate with increasing income). Good Luck!"
The US has had higher tax rates and has always had loopholes for the very wealthy to escape those taxes.   It is this simple. The productive investment of capital puts that capital at risk. Given the economic situation in the world, the risk of loss is high. If the risk is high and the taxes on profit are also high, investors will look for low risk investments. Low risk investments are not those that create jobs and grow the economy.
They're wrong, and it's easy to show that if you pay the same % in taxes then you end up the same either way. If you have an initial investment of 10k, an effective tax rate of 25%, and gains of 10% a year, here are the numbers: You invest 10k into a traditional. After 50 years, you have $1,173,908.  After paying taxes, you end up with $880,431. You invest 10k into a Roth. After paying the taxes, your initial investment is $7500. After 50 years, you have $880,431 - the same you have with the traditional. The advantage from the Roth comes from two things - the assumption that taxes are lower now for you than they will be in the future (a good bet, given that taxes are relatively low in the US) and the ability to have a mix of taxable and non-taxable income to draw from in retirement to lower your effective tax rate (draw down the taxable up to a certain tax bracket then use your non-taxable above that).
No. Black Scholes includes a number of variables to calculate the value of the derivative but taxation isn't one of them. Whether you are trading options or futures, the dividend itelf may be part of the equation, but not the tax on said dividend.
In the US, the key to understanding the benefits of retirement accounts is to understand capital gains taxes and how they work. Retirement accounts are designed for making investments throughout your career, then after several decades of contributions, withdrawing that money to pay for your needs when your full-time employment has concluded. Normally when you invest money in a brokerage account, if the value of your investment increases, and you sell in less than a year, those investments are considered short-term gains and taxed as ordinary income. If you hold that same investment for over a year, the same investment is taxed at a lower capital gains rate (depending on which tax bracket you are in during that year, the amount due could be up to 20%, but much lower than your regular income tax rate). When you place your money in a retirement account, you are choosing to either pay the tax due on the income when you put it in the account, or put the money in tax free and pay the tax when you withdraw (these are called tax-deferred accounts). When you have money invested several decades, the raw dollar amount increases greatly, but inflation is also reducing the value of those dollars. Imagine you bought some bonds that payed 4% over 40 years, but inflation was 2% during those same years. When you sell those bonds 40 years later, you will owe capital gains on the entire gain even though half of the gain came from inflation. Retirement accounts allow you to buy and sell according to your investment needs and goals without any consideration about whether the gains are short-term or long-term, and they also allow you to pay taxes just once, either when you put it in, or when you take it out, with no worries about whether you're paying taxes on inflated gains.
For example in Canada, there is a 'dividend tax credit' which reduces the taxes owing on dividends received by a corporation. This credit exists to prevent 'double-taxation', because otherwise the corporation would pay its ~30% of tax, and then a wealthy investor would pay another ~45% of tax. Due to the mechanics of how the credit is calculated, however, someone who makes less money, gets an even lower tax bill than they normally would. This means that someone making under the top tax bracket in Canada, has a tax benefit by receiving dividends. This means that while 2 stocks may be both fairly priced, if one pays dividends and the other doesn't [ie: if the other company instead reinvests more heavily in future projects, creating even more value for shareholders down the road], then someone in the bottom tax brackets may want the dividend paying stock more than the other. In conclusion: Picking investments yourself does require some knowledge to prevent yourself from making a 'bad buy'; this is because the market is not perfectly efficient. As well, specific market mechanics make some trades more costly than they should be in theory; consider for example transaction fees and tax mechanics. Finally, even if you assume that all of the above is irrelevant as a theoretical idea, different investors still have different needs. Just because $1,000,000 is the 'fair' price for a factory in your home town, doesn't mean you might as well convert your retirement savings to buy it as your sole asset.
"Massachusets does no such thing. The 5.25% tax is only on realized gains. ""Unearned"" means ""doesn't tie to your trade/business"", i.e.: is not gained through your personal performance."
This question is about PROPERTY acquired before becoming a resident of the US. If you bought property before you were a resident, and sold it after you were a resident, then you pay capital gains tax on the whole thing. Just see if it qualifies for long term capital gains tax treatment, because it is a substantially lower tax rate. You either have a tax event or you don't, and there's nothing wrong with an audit to prove that, so don't worry too much about it (unless you have a legitimate reason to be worried). Simply having what YOU perceive as a lot of money, doesn't make the possible lack of taxes more or less serious. If he has things that have declined in value, he can sell them at a loss this year and buy identical assets immediately. This is called tax harvesting and creates a loss that can offset capital gains tax.
"A REIT is a real estate investment trust. It is a company that derives most of its gross income from and holds most of its assets in real estate investments, which, in this case, include either real property, mortgages, or both. They provide a way for investors to get broad exposure in a real estate market without going to buy a bunch of properties themselves. It also provides diversification within the real estate segment since REITs will often (but not necessarily) have either way more properties than an individual could get or have very large properties (like a few resorts) that would be too expensive for any one investor. By law, they must pay at least 90% of their taxable income as dividends to investors, so they typically have a good dividend rate (possibly but not necessarily) at the expense of growth of the stock price. Some of those dividends may be tax advantaged and some will not. An MLP is a master limited partnership. These trade on the exchange like corporations, but they are not corporations. (Although often used in common language as synonyms, corporation and company are not the same thing. Corporation is one way to organize a company under the law.) They are partnerships, and when you buy a share you become a partner in the company. This is an alternative form of ownership to being a shareholding. In this case you are a limited partner, which means that you have limited liability as with stock. The shares may appreciate or not, just like a stock, and you can generally sell them back to the market for a capital gain or loss under the same rules as a stock. The main difference here from a practical point of view is taxes: Partnerships (of any type) do no pay tax - Instead their income and costs are passed to the individual partners, who must then include it on their personal returns (Form 1040, Schedule E). The partnership will send each shareholder a Schedule K-1 form at tax time. This means you may have ""phantom income"" that is taxable even though cash never flowed through your hands since you'll have to account for the income of the partnership. Many partnerships mitigate this by making cash distributions during the year so that the partners do actually see the cash, but this is not required.
Reinvestment creates a nightmare when it comes time to do taxes, sadly. Tons of annoying little transactions that happened automatically... Here's one article trying to answer your question: http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/taxes/figuring-out-your-cost-basis-when-youve-lost-the-statements-9529/ You could also try this thing: http://www.gainskeeper.com/us/BasisProIndividual.aspx But I couldn't tell you if it would help. If it makes you feel better, brokerages are now required by the IRS to track your basis for you, so for new transactions and assets you shouldn't end up in this situation. Doesn't help with the old stuff ;-)
I worked for a company who managed money for Braeburn. They are managed more like a foundation than a hedge fund. They invested in a fixed income separate account.   Yes, they definitely try to avoid taxes as the entity was domiciled in a Ireland and their offices were in Reno.   The goal of Braeburn is to maintain that huge amount of cash on the balance. avoiding taxes is an efficient way to do that.
I'd listen to the person who doesn't want tax deferral.  S/he is wise. I'd do it in a taxable account.  Talk about the investments all you want, pool your knowledge, but invest privately and separately. Pay your taxes and be done with them.