vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
If you take the statement you quote as stated, it is indeed absurd. Unless you have a really creative tax accountant or live in a country with very unusual tax laws, any tax deduction you get for mortgage interest is going to be less than the interest. You don't come out ahead by getting a $25 deduction if you had a $100 expense to get that deduction. Where there can be some sense behind such a statement is if you consider the alternative to paying cash for a house or making extra payments against a mortgage. If you had $100,000 in cash in a box under your bed, and the choice is between, (a) use that $100,000 to buy a house in cash, or (b) borrow $100,000 at 6% interest and leave that cash in the box under the bed, than clearly (a) is the better choice because it saves you the interest expense. But if the choice is between, (a) buy a house for $100,000 in cash and borrow $100,000 at 6% to buy a car; or (b) borrow $100,000 at 6% interest to buy a house and use the $100,000 cash to buy the car, (b) is the better choice. The home mortgage loan is tax deductible; the car loan is not. As others have pointed out, if instead of using some extra cash to pay down the principle on your mortgage you used that money to invest in the stock market, it is likely that you would get better returns on the investment than what you would have saved in interest on the mortgage -- depending, of course, on how the market is doing and how well you pick stocks. But the key issue there isn't the tax deduction, it's the comparison of the profits from the investment versus the opportunity cost of the money that could have been saved on the mortgage interest. The tax deduction affects that comparison by effectively reducing the interest rate on the mortgage -- your real interest expense is the nominal interest minus the deduction -- but that's not the key point, just another number to plug in to the formula. By the way, given the complexity of U.S. tax law, I would not rule out the possibility that there could be some scenario where you really would save money by having mortgage interest.
I guess it depends on what you mean by dodging taxes. Some could argue that legally taking advantage of tax loopholes is dodging taxes, while still perfectly legal. I think we are just talking semantics at this point. The main message is that there is nothing wrong with trying to cut your taxes.
Talk to a tax professional. The IRS really doesn't like the deduction, and it's a concept (like independent contractors) that is often not done properly. You need to, at a minimum, have records, including timestamped photographs, proving that: Remember, documentation is key, and must be filed and accessible for a number of years. Poor record keeping will cost you dearly, and the cost of keeping those records is something that you need to weigh against the benefit.
I am not a tax accountant and the caveats about taking tax advice from random people on the internet stand. I have, however, had partial payment as in specie benefit in the past so have a good idea of how this is taxed. The chickens are taxed as in specie benefits (supposing you classify the chickens as beneficial) at the same rate as any other payment. That the chickens died soon after has no effect unless it was for a reason that meant that their value was lower at the time that you received them than was accounted for for tax reasons. If their value at that time was less than reported you can write down the value and receive a tax rebate for the amount of tax on that write down.
TaxTips.ca's Federal Tax Rates page has basic information about income tax in Canada, and it states: Canadian federal income tax is   calculated based on taxable income,   then non-refundable tax credits are   deducted to determine the net amount   payable.  For 2009, every taxpayer can   earn taxable income of $10,320 ($9,600   in 2008) before paying any federal   tax. [...] (emphasis mine) Of course there are also provincial taxes to consider, but generally each province has a basic personal exemption amount.  TaxTips.ca's page for Ontario rates lists $8,881 as the basic personal exemption in Ontario, for 2009.  Find other provinces here.
If you claim 3 allowances on your federal taxes, all other things being equal, your taxable wages are reduced by $438.45, leaving you with taxable income of $2061.55. Still in the 25% bracket, but the wages subject to that level are only $619.55, for taxes in the 25% bracket of $154.89, plus the withholding base of $187.20 equals total federal w/h of $342.09 per paycheck, a savings of about $110pp. Those allowances do not count towards other federal taxes, and I do not know if PA state taxes figure these in. It seems odd that you would owe that much in taxes with your withholding effectively maxed out, unless you have some other form of income that you're reporting such as investment gains, child support/alimony, etc. With nobody claiming you as a dependent and no dependents of your own, filing Single, and zero allowances on your W-4 resulting in the tax withholding above, a quick run of the 1040EZ form shows that the feds should owe YOU $1738.20. The absolute worst-case scenario of you being claimed as a dependent by someone else should still get you a refund of $800 if you had your employer withhold the max. The numbers should only have gotten better if you're married or have kids or other dependents, or have significant itemized deductions such as a home mortgage (on which the interest and any property taxes are deductible). If you itemize, remember that state income tax, if any, is also deductible. I would consult a tax professional and have him double-check all your numbers. Unless there's something significant you haven't told us, you should not have owed the gov't at the end of the year."
Another way to look at it is that deductibles are intended as incentives or subsidies to particular industries (in this case the healthcare industry). Guaranteeing a decent standard of living and making sure everybody can meet the costs of “necessities” can be achieved much more easily by a low tax rate on the first XXX$ of income and/or generic welfare benefits rather than any measure focused on making healthcare, food or whatnot cheaper or free under certain conditions. Incidentally, many countries do have different forms of benefits or tax breaks for accommodation-related expenses.
If you don't itemize your deductions, your state tax refund is not considered income to you. Even if you didn't receive the actual 1099-G, you know how much refund you got, so you can calculate if you need to add it back to your income this year using the worksheet on page 23 of the instructions.
You are correct that W-4s are very confusing for multiple income homes, and even more so if you change salary significantly during the year.  There are just too many variables in those situations to provide an effective, simple form. Unfortunately, the best way to get accurate withholdings is trial-and-error.  Try and estimate how much tax you'll have to pay for the year.  There are several calculators out there, but essentially you can take your gross income, subtract the standard exemptions for you and all dependents, subtract the standard deductions (or estimate your itemized deductions), and compute your tax based on the federal tax tables.  Then subtract any tax credits you may be eligible for. Then estimate your withholdings for the year by multiplying your current withholdings by the number of pay periods left, and adding your YTD withholdings.  If your total withholdings are higher than your estimated tax, add one or two exemptions to reduce your withholdings (and vice versa).   If all that sounds like a lot of work (which it is), at a minimum make sure you withhold as much tax as you paid last year.  That way you avoid any tax penalties, but might have a tax bill when you file.  If you want to be conservative and withhold a little extra that's fine - you might even end up with a refund when you file.  The good news is it doesn't have to be exact; any difference will determine what you pay (or what refund you get) when you file.
For tax purposes, what matters is your province of residence at December 31st. Quebec Tax abatement therefore applies if you were living in Quebec, regardless of your employer, assuming you are an employee. As for effective tax, your question misses some data and does not quite make sense as effective tax is the result of dividing your total taxes paid after deductions and tax credits by your total income. As such, one cannot tell you your effective tax rate without knowing taxes paid after deductions and tax credits and total income.
Keep in mind that chasing after tax savings tends to not be a good way of saving money.  What is a good strategy? Making sure that you take all the deductions you are entitled to. What is a bad strategy: You asked for a book recommendation. The problem is that I don't know of any books that cover all these topics. Also keep in mind that all books, blogs, articles, and yes answers to questions have a bias. Sometimes the bias can be ignored, other times it can't. Just keep looking for information on this site, and ask good specific questions about these topics.
ADP does not know your full tax situation and while the standard exemption system (actually designed by the IRS not ADP) works fairly well for most people it is an approximation.  This system is designed so most people will end up with a small refund while some people will end up owing small amounts.  So, while it is possible that ADP has messed up the calculations it is unlikely this is the cause.  The most likely cause is that approximation ends ups making you pay less tax during the year than you actually owe. A few people like your friend may end up owing large amounts due to various circumstances.  It is always your responsibility to make sure you pay enough tax throughout the year.  While this technically means that you need to do your taxes every quarter during the year to make sure you pay the correct tax during the year, for most people this ends up being unnecessary as the approximation works fine.  It is possible the exemption system failed your friend, but much more commonly people owe penalties because they put the wrong number of exemptions or had other side income. On a related note, most people in finance would argue that your situation where you owe some money at tax time, but not so much that you have to pay a penalty, is actually the best way to go.  Getting a tax refund actually means you paid more tax than you needed to.  This is similar to giving an interest-free loan to the government.
The PAYE tax and NI will be deducted as usual. Send HMRC a P85 form to tell them you're emigrating, and they will refund the tax.
I have fairly simple tax returns and my experience was that TurboTax software produced roughly the same result as human accountant and costs much less. The accountant was never able to find any deductions that the program couldn't find.  Of course, if you have business, etc. you probably need an accountant to help you navigate all the rules, requirements, etc. But for simple enough cases I found that the additional pay is not justified.
"You're asking explicitly about $250K+ wage earners. Well, believe it or not, but this is the most discriminated group of people in the US tax code. This is what is called ""the upper middle class"". People who still have to work for a living, but treated as if they're rich (I don't consider people who must work to keep up their life style as rich). Many of the deductions cannot be taken by them. Lets go over the list Keith made: You mentioned losses - you cannot deduct gambling losses (in excess of gambling income), and you cannot deduct passive (rental real estate, for example) losses. While for rental real estate there's a small amount of losses you could deduct, it phases out well below the $250K line (can be deducted against passive income, or when disposed of the property). 529 plans are not deductible (in fact, its a gift subject to the gift tax). Bottom line, being a high earner with wages only means you pay the most tax. You either find a way to become self employed and have a lot of business deductions on your schedule C/1120S, or switch to capital gains. You can marry an unemployed partner, it will make your life slightly easier."
"Will this difference be given back in my next tax return If you compute your taxes correctly, yes you will get that money back when your tax return is processed. ""is it possible to return the check and modify how it's calculated if I talk to payroll?""  That is entirely up to your company but, probably not. It's a lot of effort for a comparatively small amount of money.  ""Any ideas?"" Yeah, you are doing your math wrong. A possible but more unlikely answer is your company's software screwed up."
The short answer is yes you probably can take the deduction for a home office because the space is used exclusively and you are working there for the convenience of your employer if you don't have a desk at your employers office. The long answer is that it may not be worth it to take the home office deduction as an employee. You're deduction is subject to a 2% AGI floor. You can only deduct a percentage of your rent or the depreciation on your home. A quick and dirty example if you make $75k/year, rent a 1200 sqft 2 bedroom apartment for $1000/month and use one bedroom (120 sqft) regularly and exclusively for your employer. You can deduct 10% (120sqft/1200sqft) of the $12000 ($1000*12 months (assumes your situation didn't change)) in rent or $1200. However because you are an employee you are subject to the 2% AGI floor so you can deduct $1200-$1500 (75000*.02 (salary * 2% floor)) = -300 so in order to deduct the first dollar you need an additional $300 worth of deductible expenses.  Depending on your situation it may or may not be worth it to take the home office deduction even if you qualify for it.
I don't follow that at all, I don't think those are all complete sentences. And do you think there's only one tax bracket?  But from your first sentence, it seems like you're saying that the government says it's reducing inequality when it actually isn't. So why are you upset about how they're reducing inequality?
There is also some legal argument regarding the separation of state and federal governments, and their respective powers to tax each other's income.  I don't know the arcane details, but allowing one to tax the other would require upsetting a long legal history between the two.
" The first $9,275 of your taxable income is taxed at a 10% rate. So if your total taxable income falls between $9,276 and $37,650, the first $9,275 is taxed at 10% (a tax of $927.50) and the amount over $9,275 is taxed at 15%. On each line of the chart, the amount of tax from all the previous brackets is carried down, so you don't have to calculate it. When I said that you have at least $10,350 in deductions and exemptions, I got that number from the standard deduction and the personal exemption amount. For 2016, the standard deduction for single taxpayers is $6,300. (If you itemize your deductions, you might be able to deduct more.) Personal exemptions for 2016 are at $4,050 per person. That means you get to reduce your taxable income by $4,050 for each person in your household. Since you are single with no dependents, your standard deduction plus the personal exemption for yourself will result in a reduction of at least $10,350 on your taxable income."
"You could debate the ""why""s of tax policy endlessly. There are lots of things in tax law that I think are bad ideas, and probably a few here and there that I think are good ideas. I am well aware that there are things that I think are good ideas that others think are bad ideas and vice versa.  To your specific point: I suppose you could say that having a place to live is a necessity. But most people do not live in the absolute minimum necessary to give them a place to sleep and protection from the weather. You could survive with a one-room apartment with a bed on one side and a toilet and some minimal cooking facilities on the other. Most people have considerably more than that. At some point that's luxury and not necessity. And if you want to push it, you COULD live in a cardboard box under a bridge, you don't NEED a house or apartment to survive. Personally I think it's absurd that as a home-owner I get a deduction for my mortgage interest, while if someone were to rent an identical house with a monthly rental equal to exactly the same amount that I am paying on my mortgage, he would receive no deduction. The stated goal of that one was to encourage home ownership. But people who own homes are generally richer than those who rent, so the net result is that the poor are paying higher taxes to help subsidize the homes of the rich. And then the rich congratulate themselves on how they are giving these tax breaks to help make housing more affordable for poor people. To reiterate @keshlam, tax laws only makes sense when understood politically. Yes, some people have fine ideas about what is fair and just. Others simply want tax breaks that benefit their business or people with tough financial situations that just happen by chance to resemble their own. Many of the people with noble ideas have little concept of what the implications of the policies they push are. Many of the ideas that some people view as worthy and noble, others view as frivolous, counter-productive, or even evil. Then you mash all these competing groups and interest together and see what comes out."
No, it's not possible. Even if you had no deduction or credits, your federal tax on $16,604 would be: $9075 @ 10% = $907.50 +  $7529 @ 15% = $1129.35 = $2036.85 That assumes you are filing as single. There must be more to the story.  Typo in your income numbers?  Also, what do you mean by a self-employment tax deduction? Maybe update your question to include a breakdown of everything you entered? Edit: As noted in Loren's answer, it seems that it is indeed possible in at least one case (self-employment taxes).
For many taxpayers who have a large increase in pay from one year to the next, they can take advantage of a safe-harbor in the tax law. If they had withheld as much money in 2015 as they paid in 2014, they have reached the safe-harbor. They avoid the penalty for under withholding. Note that 2014 number is not what you paid on tax day or what was refunded, but all your income taxes for the entire year. Because in your case your taxes for the year 2014 were ZERO, that might mean that you automatically reach the safe-harbor for 2015. That makes sense because one of the key requirements of claiming exempt is that you had no liability the year before. It won't save you from paying what you owe but it can help avoid a penalty. Lessons
"Turbotax community had a similar question. They claim you just put it into ""Office Expense"".  I never understood why there are so many categories when they are just summed up and subtracted from your income. How can you possibly get in trouble for putting something in a wrong column if the final tax liability doesn't change."
If you make 100K in the U.S., you are most definitely NOT paying 25.7% tax federally. Only money that you made over 37.5K is even charged at 25% AND you didn't even factor in that you get deductions which decrease your effective tax rate. Where are you pulling your numbers?
"Apparently box 39 does not receive half of box 38 if ""The price of the share or unit is less than its fair market value when the agreement was made."" - the last point in paragraph 110(1)(d): *http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/bnfts/fnncl/scrty/stckpt03-eng.html#dspst The employee can claim a deduction under paragraph 110(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act if all of the following conditions are met:"
Looking at taxes on earned income vs. investment income, you'll see a huge difference. Nearly all super rich people earn most of their income from investments, eg see Buffet - that's why his secretary pays more in taxes.  Plus, there's plenty of other legal ways to legally lower tax obligations, eg deferred carry forwards on losses, etc.  TLDR: duh
The ""effective"" tax rate on the total amount, as if you were being charged a flat tax, is 15.75%, and this is just for the federal income tax. Add to this MA state income taxes (5.25% flat tax), FICA (aka Medicare; 1.45% flat) and SECA (aka Social Security; 6.2% up to a ""wage base"" that $50k doesn't even approach), and your effective tax rate on each dollar you earn is 15.75% + 5.25% + 1.45% + 6.2% = 28.65%. This doesn't include any state unemployment taxes that may be withheld separately, but as the rate I come up with is pretty darn close to what you've figured (meaning I slightly overestimated your gross income and thus your effective tax rate), my bet is that SUTA's either employer-paid in MA, or it's just part of MA state income tax. It gets better, at least at the federal level: The amount of your state income taxes is tax-deductible at the federal level if you itemize your deductions. That may not be a factor for you as you'd have to come up with more than $6,100 of other tax-deductible expenses to make itemizing the better option than taking the standard deduction (big-ticket items are mortgage expenses other than principal payments, hospital stays such as for childbirth or major accident, and state and local taxes such as sales, property and income). If you can claim yourself as a dependent (meaning your parents can't), then $150 of each check ($3,900 of your annual salary) is no longer taxed for federal withholding, lowering the amount of money taxed at the 25% marginal rate. You effectively save $37.50 biweekly ($975 annually) in taxes. Get married and file jointly, and your spouse, her personal exemption, and an extra standard deduction amount (if you don't itemize) go on your taxes.
What about changing the income tax to a national sales tax and putting different products and services on a tiered system.  Basic necessities would be taxed at a lower rate (if at all), then you work up the tiers towards purely luxury items that are taxed at a much higher rate?  That would give us the benefits of a sales tax while, at the same time, not placing an extra burden on the lower class (who would, presumably, need to spend a higher portion of their income on basic necessities).