vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Though non-resident Indians (NRIs) earn their living abroad, their obligation to file tax returns in India doesn't end. With the July 31 deadline for filing returns barely a month away, NRIs need to gear up to file their return if they have income in India that exceeds the basic exemption limit. How to Determine tax residency status: An NRI first needs to determine his tax residency status, that is, whether he falls in the category of resident or non-resident Indian (NRI) for tax purposes. While there may be no ambiguity regarding the status of an NRI who has lived abroad for a long time, those who have moved abroad recently or have returned to India after a long stay abroad need to ascertain their residency status properly.
Organize your expenses in order of the rate of return, and pay them in that order.  By far the highest rate of return on your list is: Nowhere else are you going to see an immediate 100% return (or 50%, depending on the company's matching policy) on every dollar you allocate to this pot. Second would probably be: Money that you do not allocate here will usually incur a 15%-29% penalty.  Outside of large expenses like a home, education, or a reasonable car, you never want to pay to use your own money (and borrowed money is still yours, remember that someday you have to pay all of it back).  Avoiding a negative rate of return (interest) can be just as beneficial as finding a high positive rate of return on an investment. Continue down the list determining what must be paid first, and what the highest rates are in the immediate future and the long run.  Meanwhile, live within your means, and set aside a portion of your monthly income towards things like a rainy day fund (up to a level which is not touched when reached).  Additional savings through work or your personal investments should not be neglected (money saved early and compounded is worth many times what a dollar saved down the road will gain) especially if you are young in your career.
You need to talk to an accountant who practices tax accounting, preferaby someone who is an Enrolled Agent (EA) with the IRS, and possibly an attorney who specializes in tax law.  There are multiple issues here, and the executor of your father's estate might need to be involved here too.  Presumably you were a minor in 2007 since the transactions took place in a custodial account, and perhaps you were a dependent of your father in 2007.  So, were the transactions reported on your father's 2007 income tax return? or did he file a separate income tax return in your name? You say you have a W2 for 2007. So you were  earning some income in 2007? This complicates matters. It is necessary to determine who has the responsibility to file income tax returns for a minor with earned income. Above all, I urge you to not file income tax returns on your own or using a tax return preparation program, or after talking to a tax return preparation service (where you will likely get someone who works on a seasonal basis and is unlikely to be familiar with tax law as of 2007).
(http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png) This is further supported by the OECD data: * [Americans ""currency and deposits"" are 13% vs 5.8% for ""securities and other shares"" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm) Additionally: * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) * [""Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts..."" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf) * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.* In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100."
This form is due March 15. This year, the 15th is Saturday, so the deadline is Monday March 17th.  Keep in mind, the software guys would have two choices, wait until every last form is finalized before releasing, or put the software out by late November when 80%+ are good to go.  Nothing is broken in this process. Keep in mind that there are different needs depending on the individual. I like to grab a copy in early December, and have a preliminary idea of what my return with look like. I'll also know if I'll owe so much that I should send in a quarterly tax payment.  The IRS isn't accepting any return until 1/31 I believe, so you've lost no time.  When you open the program, it usually ask to 'phone home' and update. In a couple weeks, all should be well.  (Disclosure - I have guest posted on tax issues at both TurboTax and H&R Block's blogs. The above are my own views.)
None whatsoever, no. Moreover, trying something like that would very likely trigger a full audit.
JP Morgan wasn't going to go down. The Federal Reserve was coming to them every other day asking them to buy out or bail out another institution. They stashed away a $20 billion fund after their acquisition of Bear Stearns because they were now on the hook for anything BS did, which is where that $13 billion fine came from.
If you have a single-member LLC that is treated as a disregarded entity (i.e. you didn't elect to be taxed as a corporation), and that LLC had no activity, you're off the hook for federal reporting. The LLC's activity would normally be reported on your personal tax return on a Schedule C. If the LLC had under $400 in taxable earnings, no Schedule C is needed. So an inactive LLC does not have a tax reporting requirement. (If you had taxable income but under $400, you include that amount on your 1040 but don't need a Schedule C.) In Texas, you still must file a Texas franchise tax report every year, even for a single-member LLC with no activity.
The 2012 return was due 4/15/2013 (I'm assuming it didn't fall on a weekend). No late filing penalty if there was no tax due, but he has until 4/15/2016 to file for a refund or to document anything that should have carried forward.
Q1: Which is better option and provide good returns between FD and RD ?  There is no right or wrong answer here and depends on rates, convenience, exactness of duration, etc and other things. In general an FD would give you better return than RD. Q2: Am I liable to pay income tax on the interest earned ? If you have a NRE/NRO account you are not liable for tax on interest in India. Note you may still be liable to pay tax on this in the US
As in make a value contribution, this particular law has never once been applied to information (which has no tangible value). Its only bearing in case law is on monetary contribution. I might also add, there is no evidence that any contribution, either money, information, or otherwise was passed between the provincial Russian DA and the Trump campaign.  Bearing that in mind, how exactly do you feel the Russian government influenced the election, and what exactly do you feel was the Trump campaigns role?
Who cares about that. It doesn't wipe out there million dollar salaries that management took home in 2013.  Welcome to wall st homie. That 17 billion is half going to attorneys and half going to whatever the govt wastes money on.
Daily &gt; Weekly &gt; Monthly. This statement says that if you use daily returns you will get more noise than if you used weekly or monthly returns. Much of the research performed uses monthly returns, although weekly returns have been used as well. For HFT you would need to detrend the data in order to spot true turning points.
One big pie chart.  Traditional (pretax) 401(k) and IRA, Roth 401(k) and IRA, and non-tax favored accounts. All of these need to be viewed holistically, the non-favored money is where I'd keep cash/low return safe instruments, Roth IRA for highest growth.
Choose one:  1. Fight war with Russia  2. Fight war with North Korea  3. Battle of the sexes  4. Fully investigate Jeffrey Epstein  ...depending on who you are, it would be better for some topics to stay in the newscycle than others.
"I presumed he wanted 13 years of data at market close. Of course the more frequently he wants the data and the more attributes he wants the larger the file will be.  I'm all but certain he thinks he's going to be the first genius to develop a quant screen and identify ""hot stocks""."
Variable Annuities would be one option though there are SEC warnings about them, for an option that is tax-deferred and intended to be used for long-term investing such as retirement. There is a bit of a cost to gain the tax-deferral which may not always make them worthwhile.
John's answer is great, the question, however, is complex enough that one can write a book on the topic.  So, I'll take the liberty to add two observations. The matched 401(k) should be the priority, even before paying off one's credit cards if any. A dollar for dollar match combined with the extra years of compounding is worth a bit longer on the debt pay off. To a younger person, the Roth (either Roth 401(k) or IRA) is a good choice while you are in a lower tax bracket. I recommend you look at the page at Fairmark to understand the tax brackets. It's easy to see how many people straddle that 15% line (at $68K taxable) and with a bit of planning, using Roth while in the 15% bracket and deductible accounts as you go above, you can tax-manage your affairs to avoid the higher rates.
&gt;Reminder: SEC can only pursue civil charges. They cannot charge criminally.  Sure, and using their equations I can commit a triple homicide and the appropriate punishment is probation and a $36 fine but no record because I did not admit or deny charges.
"So this dude actually brought this upon himself. SEC was initiating the usual ""administrative proceedings"" against him when he decided to sue the SEC to try him in a federal court with jury and stuff.   SEC did just that and now he will be convicted with some jail time.   He could've gone home with some fines."
Mostly these are results of arguments between shareholders. These suits come when shareholders alleged that directors didn't act in their best interests. Unless its a class action suit, I'd say there's no ramifications for an average shareholder.
"There are situations where you can be forced to cover a position, particular when ""Reg SHO"" (""regulation sho"") is activated. Reg SHO is intended to make naked short sellers cover their position, it is to prevent abusive failure to delivers, where someone goes short without borrowing someone else's shares. Naked shorting isn't a violation of federal securities laws but it becomes an accounting problem when multiple people have claims to the same underlying assets. (I've seen companies that had 120% of their shares sold short, too funny, FWIW the market was correct as the company was worth nothing.) You can be naked short without knowing it. So there can be times when you will be forced to cover. Other people being forced to cover can result in a short squeeze. A risk. The other downside is that you have to pay interest on your borrowings. You also have to pay the dividends to the owner of the shares, if applicable. In shorter time frames these are negligible, but in longer time frames, such as closer to a year or longer, these really add up. Let alone the costs of the market going in the opposite direction, and the commissions."
I don't see this article being about the merit of the customers claim but rather the condition of sale:  &gt; You agree not to file any complaint, chargeback, claim, dispute, or make any public forum post, review, Better Business Bureau complaint, social media post, or any public statement regarding the order, our website, or any issue regarding your order, for any reason, within this 90 day period, or to threaten to do so within the 90 day period, or it is a breach of the terms of sale, creating liability for damages in the amount of $250, plus any additional fees, damages - both consequential and incidental, calculated on an ongoing basis.  I'm happy to rally my pitchfork against any company that includes these conditions.
&gt; I'm not so sure the current agency is all that interested in actually holding executives accountable for breaking the law.  After all the talk about less of a focus on regulation and more emphasis on enforcement?  I wouldn't be so sure. Especially when you have these three geniuses, a company whose PR people are saying 'they didn't know' while their investor relations people are emphatically telling shareholders that the board was notified of the breach immediately and took action.  I mean, you don't often find that juicy a poster child to show America that, yes, you *were* serious about the SEC needing to focus less on the rule making and more on enforcing existing regulations.
They are contractually agreeing to terms that govern how penalties apply to a deposit that involves how wedding party guests review the hotel on Yelp.  Its certainly possible to challenge this in court, but it isn't a first amendment challenge.  Maybe something more like just disputing the charges and asking the hotel to prove the review was left by a particular wedding party member.
"Yes, it applies to control groups.  If I remember correctly common ownership rules are used to determine ""Applicable Large Employer"" status but if the time comes to owe a penalty, only the actual entity missing the mark will owe a penalty, not the entire control group. This is an excerpt from Section 4980H (the section that lays out employer requirements and penalties) (16) Employer. The term employer means the person that is the employer of an employee under the common-law standard. See § 31.3121(d)-1(c). For purposes of determining whether an employer is an applicable large employer, all persons treated as a single employer under section 414(b), (c), (m), or (o) are treated as a single employer. Thus, all employees of a controlled group of entities under section 414(b) or (c), an affiliated service group under section 414(m), or an entity in an arrangement described under section 414(o), are taken into account in determining whether the members of the controlled group or affiliated service group together are an applicable large employer. For purposes of determining applicable large employer status, the term employer also includes a predecessor employer (see paragraph (a)(36) of this section) and a successor employer. Link to the Federal Register"
They do state that but it may not mean much. I just read an article where the former NJ attorney general warns that a legal contract like this would trump a statement from the marketing department saying the clause does not apply.   The article was on Bloomberg, I'd cite it if I wasn't too lazy right now.
"A retraction privilege is a right extended to the shareholder that allows such shareholder to demand repayment of the principal. If one exercises the right to retract, the shares are exchanged for principal plus a sweetener and/or less a penalty. The requirement to provided matched shares means that the shares purchased plus those matched by the employer only have retraction privileges.  Unmatched shares do not. To be certain, it's always best to read all contracts, but in essence, this is a way to ""cash out"" of the preferred shares. The consent to resale is a power granted to the holder over the corporation to resell the retracted shares.  If it's granted, the corporation can sell to another party; if not, the corporation will have to retire the shares and issue new shares to maintain the previous number of shares outstanding.  It is likely that withholding consent has a penalty, and/or granting consent has a sweetener."
It is a simple case of breaking the wrong law. You can commit normal fraud all day long and the SEC won't life a finger. But even get within a hundred miles of a insider trading deal and they'll hit you like a ton of bricks.   It is easy an easy case to prove, there is no question as to it being illegal (even the janitor is expected to take a class on it), and the SEC was specifically set up to stop it after the Great Depression.  Really, it boggles my mind that anyone of that rank would think he can get away with it.
Yet the underlying truth is the same. Bid fixing. We know it was done on a wide scale and we know it illegal. It doesn't matter what you think of the author you can verify that yourself and the court agreed.  You can make all the excuse you want but if all you want to do is quibble about why he shot out one number for the total bond market instead of muni bonds from 2007-2008 (actually one of the least relevant points to the story no matter which number you use) then you're missing the forest for the trees or your going out of your way to excuse widespread illegal business activity. Bid fixing is bid fixing. That it only impacted the smaller mini bond market isn't something that negates the larger story here.
Deserved. There's not nearly enough accountability in the finance industry these days. No one went to prison for anything related to the 2008 housing/mortgage crisis; also read in the Chicago Tribune today that somebody got off with just *fines* for billions of dollars of tax fraud. It's ridiculous.
I don't think you can really classify it as front running. Technically, the only information, that the alleged front runner in this case has over the followers is the knowledge of the trade itself. Knowledge of the trade may indeed be share price sensitive information (for some high volume traders or those respected and with many followers) but it's not really like they can't know about it before everyone else; parity isn't possible in this case. If an company/organisation (i.e. the social trading platform say) responsible for disseminating the details/log of a trader to a following (or individuals working for said company/organisation), were to act on the trading data before dissemination then THEY would be guilty of front running. The alleged front runner may profit from the following of course, but that's only really occurring due to the publication of information that is share price sensitive, and such information generally has to be published by law (if it is by law so classified) so it's difficult to find too much fault. There has to be a certain amount of consideration on the part of any trader as to who is more the fool, the fool or the fool that follows them?
What rules are being violated? What specific rule changes do you propose?   The reason I ask is, because rule changes put into effect to prevent certain activities often have unintended and unforseen consequences.   Several exchanges are enacting fees that will curb this activity. Essentially if you send over X number of quotes today, and get filled on less than Y% of them, you will be charged a fee of Z for each quote sent over X. The number of quotes X is in the six figure range, the fill rate Y is around 80%, and the fee is a mil or so.   This effectively curbs behavior like this.
Merrill charges $500 flat fee to (I assume purchase) my untraded or worthless security. In my case, it's an OTC stock whose management used for a microcap scam, which resulted in a class action lawsuit, etc. but the company is still listed on OTC and I'm stuck with 1000s of shares. (No idea about the court decision)
In principle I agree with you. However the allegation is that the people managing the IPO withheld crucial information and informed insiders against investing. Maybe the allegations are false, but it should still be looked into. If the IPO shared crucial details with insider traders while keeping it from the public at large that would affect the investor's risk-assessment of a stock, that's insider trading and should be punished accordingly.
In addition to increasing the likelihood of being outbid by a third-party, failure to pay an adequate premium is often grounds for class action lawsuits that may take years to resolve with great uncertainty for most parties involved. For a recent example and more details see this media opinion and overview about Dell Inc. being taken private in 2013, the lawsuits that transaction prompted and the court's ruling in 2016 in favor of passive shareholder plaintiffs. Though it has more to do with determining fair valuation than specifically premiums, the case illustrates instruments and means used by some courts to protect non-control, passive shareholders. ========== REFERENCE As a reference, in a 2005 note written by a major US-based international corporate law firm, it noted with respect to Delaware courts, which adjudicate most major shareholder conflicts as the state has a disproportionate share of large companies in its domicile, that control premiums may not necessarily be paid to minority shareholders if the acquirer gains control of a company that continues to have minority shareholders, i.e. not a full acquisition: Delaware case law is clear that the value of a dissenting [target company's] stockholder’s shares is not to be reduced to impose a minority discount reflecting the lack of the stockholders’ control over the corporation. Indeed, this appears to be the rationale for valuing the target corporation as a whole and allocating a proportionate share of that value to the shares of [a] dissenting stockholder [exercising his appraisal rights in seeking to challenge the value the target company's board of directors placed on his shares]. At the same time, Delaware courts have suggested, without explanation, that the value of the corporation as a whole, and as a going concern, should not include a control premium of the type that might be realized in a sale of the corporation."
"I don't know if it's common or necessary to include capital stock as a liability? Yes, if you look at the title of the nonasset part of the balance sheet it actually is titled ""Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity"".  Your capital stock is a component of Equity.  This sounds like it was reported in a reasonable manner. ""$2,582 listed under Loans from Shareholders (Line 19)."" Did you have a basis issue with your distributions?  That is did you take shareholder distributions more than your adjusted basis that you have been taxed on?  I have seen the practice of considering distributions in excess of basis as short term loans to prevent the additional taxation of the excess distribution. Be careful when you adjust this entry, your balance sheet had to roll from one year to the next.  You must have a reasonable transaction to substantiate the removal of the shareholder loan."
"I think the issue here is the rules say that ""relevant current events in finance"" are acceptable when (I think) that wording is too loose.   ""Current events in finance"" is just very, very general, and anything related to central banking, monetary or fiscal policy, global austerity, analysis of index movements, sovereign defaults (and speculation thereof) qualifies a ""current events in finance"" - so technically, the rules aren't being broken. I think that having the language tightened a bit would help set the subreddit tone a little more accurately."
"According to the article, the IRS issued a ""stop-work Order"" for the contract with Equifax while it undertakes an investigation. I have to assume that the contract laid out termination provisions, so it's likely that the IRS is making sure that they don't do anything which appears to be a breach of contract and gives fuel to Equifax to sue (frustrating, I know).  What I really like is the statement released by Equifax following the decision by the IRS: “We remain confident that we are the best party to perform the services required in this contract.""   How delusional do you have to be to make a bold statement like that after what happened?"
In practice the IRS seems to apply the late payment penalty when they issue a written paper notice.  Those notices typically have a pay-by date where no additional penalty applies.  The IRS will often waive penalties, but not interest or tax due, if the taxpayer presses the issue.