vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Even though you will meet the physical presence test, you cannot claim the FEIE because your tax home will remain the US. From the IRS: Your tax home is the general area of your main place of business, employment, or post of duty, regardless of where you maintain your family home. Your tax home is the place where you are permanently or indefinitely engaged to work as an employee or self-employed individual. Having a ""tax home"" in a given location does not necessarily mean that the given location is your residence or domicile for tax purposes. ... You are not considered to have a tax home in a foreign country for any period in which your abode is in the United States. However, your abode is not necessarily in the United States while you are temporarily in the United States. Your abode is also not necessarily in the United States merely because you maintain a dwelling in the United States, whether or not your spouse or dependents use the dwelling. ... The location of your tax home often depends on whether your assignment is temporary or indefinite. If you are temporarily absent from your tax home in the United States on business, you may be able to deduct your away from home expenses (for travel, meals, and lodging) but you would not qualify for the foreign earned income exclusion. If your new work assignment is for an indefinite period, your new place of employment becomes your tax home, and you would not be able to deduct any of the related expenses that you have in the general area of this new work assignment. If your new tax home is in a foreign country and you meet the other requirements, your earnings may qualify for the foreign earned income exclusion. If you expect your employment away from home in a single location to last, and it does last, for 1 year or less, it is temporary unless facts and circumstances indicate otherwise. If you expect it to last for more than 1 year, it is indefinite. If you expect your employment to last for 1 year or less, but at some later date you expect it to last longer than 1 year, it is temporary (in the absence of facts and circumstances indicating otherwise) until your expectation changes. For guidance on how to determine your tax home refer to Revenue Ruling 93-86.
"Federal tax refund is taxes you've overpaid. What you're saying is that this year you overpaid less than before. I don't understand why you see this is as a bad thing. Optimal situation is when you have no refunds and no taxes due on tax day, but it is really hard to get there. But the closer you can get - the better, which means that reducing your refund should be your goal. In any case, ""Federal Tax Refund"" is meaningless, what you need to look at is your actual taxes due. This is the number you should be working to reduce. Is it possible to shift the amounts on a W-2 (with correct adjustments) to tax all of your wages, instead of leaving some of it deducted pre-tax? Why would you want to pay more tax? If your goal is to have a refund (I.e.: it is your way of forcing yourself to save), then you need to recalculate the numbers and adjust your W4 taking the (pre-tax) FSA into account. If it is not the goal, then you should be looking at the total taxes owed, not the refund, and adjust your W4 so that your withholding would cover the taxes owed as closely as possible. And to answer your question, after all this - of course it is possible. But it is wrong, and will indeed likely to trigger an audit. You can write whatever you want on your tax return, but in the end of it, you sign under the penalty of perjury that what you filled is the correct information. Perjury is a Federal felony, and knowingly filing incorrect tax return is fraud (especially since your motive is to gain, even though you're not actually gaining anything). Fraudulent tax returns can be audited any time (no statute of limitations)."
If you are a US resident (not necessarily citizen) then yes, you do have to pay capital gains taxes on any capital gains, including interest from assets oversees (like interest from a savings account). Additionally you have to report all your foreign bank accounts according to FATCA (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/foreign-account-tax-compliance-act-fatca).
The way I see it, corporation tax is not fundamentally different from VAT. They are both a tax on revenue minus expenses, just what those expenses are is different. I think the main advantage of corporation tax is that it allows capital expenditure to be spread over several years, although as I said this makes it more complicated (and I believe that there are some capital allowances for VAT as well).  One advantage of VAT is that sales in one country are taxed in that country before the money can be sent abroad. It seems simple and fair to split the tax burden between jurisdictions according to how many sales were made in each.
If you have flow through income then you arent being taxed at the corporate rate you are being taxed at your personal income tax rate which wont change so raising or lowering the corporate tax rate wont change that at all. Like he said tax rich people not corporations. If people just had a better understanding there wouldn't be really anybody opposed to it.
PSB taxed at higher rates. PSB is taxed at 39.5% in Ontario, as the article mentioned. But if you pay all the net income to yourself as salary, you expense it and zero it out on the corporate level. So who cares what tax rate it is if the taxable income is zero? No-one. Same goes for the US, by the way. Personal Service Corporations are taxed at flat 35% Federal tax rate. But if you pour all the income into your salary - its moot, because there's no net income to pay tax of. If it's too complicated to figure out, maybe it would be wise to hire a tax accountant to provide counsel to you before you make decisions about your business.
There's one huge difference. Generally speaking, the entire burden of paying VAT is intended to be placed upon end consumers, and not upon businesses themselves.  So ditching corporation tax and increasing VAT would mean shifting a huge amount of the tax burden from corporations to every-day people. Such a policy could kill the party that attempted to push it.
"S-Corp are taxed very different. Unlike LLC where you just add the profit to your income with S-Corp you have to pay yourself a ""reasonable"" salary (on w-2) which of course is a lot more paperwork. I think the advantage (but don't hold me accountable for this) is if your S-Corp makes a lot more than a reasonable salary, then the rest of the money can be passed through on your personal return at a lower (corp) rate."
"The profits that the corporation had to earn to be able to pay you ""eligible"" dividends for the dividend tax credit were already taxed, and at a somewhat high corporate rate, in the case of large public companies with big profits. The dividend tax credit, which permits an individual to earn a lot from dividends and not pay any personal income tax, essentially recognizes that the profit making up the dividend was already highly taxed to begin with via corporate income tax.  It aims to eliminate double-taxation. FWIW, if you own and run a small private business in Canada and pay yourself a dividend, such dividends are considered ""non-eligible"", i.e. you don't get as much a benefit from the dividend tax credit, since small business corporate income tax rates are much lower."
No there is no way to have untaxed earnings.  Single Member LLC are taxed on your personal taxes.  Partnership LLC is taxed on your and your partners personal taxes.  An C-Corp LLC has its own tax bracket.  An S-Corp is taxed on your personal taxes (but does not get taxed as self-employment taxes).   At $500,000, YOU SHOULD BE AN S-CORP or C-CORP to save on self-employment taxes.
Not true at all, one is a hard to calculate double tax that stifles growth and adds weird, usually unexpected, incentives into the market, and the other taxes wealth.  Even the bluest economist should support an end to corporate tax, because it becomes a way to tax lower-class citizens higher than they would without it.  Every middle-class family has a 401k or other IRA which is being taxed due to corporate taxes.  Corporate taxes also are passed on to low wage consumers, depending on the elasticity.
From the broad view of the IRS, in most cases an LLC and a Corp are the same type of entity (tax wise). In fact, most of the differences between LLCs and Corps occur in how Profits/losses are distributed between members (LLCs are arbitrary to a point, and Corps base this on shares). Back to your question IMHO, you should opt for an LLC. This allows you to work out a partnership with your co-worker, and allows you to disburse funds in a more flexible manner. From Wikipedia : A limited liability company with multiple members that elects to be taxed as partnership may specially allocate the members' distributive share of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit via the company operating agreement on a basis other than the ownership percentage of each member so long as the rules contained in Treasury Regulation (26 CFR) 1.704-1 are met. S corporations may not specially allocate profits, losses and other tax items under US tax law. Hope this helps, please do let me know if you have further questions. As always, this is not legal or tax advice, just what I've learned in setting several LLCs and Corporate structures up over the years. EDIT: As far as your formulas go, the tax rate will be based upon your personal income, for any pass through entity. This means that the same monies earned from and LLC or an S-corp, with the same expenses and the same pass-through options will be taxed the same. More reading: LLC and the law (Google Group)"
This answer applies only to corporation tax, not income tax.  Different things, income tax is much higher.  12.5% is the low rate for corporation tax.  The standard rate is 25%.  Or if you're Apple 0%.   Like many countries Ireland will only consider you eligible for the low rate of corporation tax if you (your Irish company) can demonstrably prove yourself resident in Ireland.  This is more than just address, and you must be able to evidence that your staff work there, your directors are both European Economic Area citizens and have their board meetings in Ireland, and most importantly that they run the company from Ireland, etc.  If you're a one man corporation, unless you want to live in Ireland, it's not going to work.   Referring to the Irish government's website:  The term 'residence' was not, until recently, defined in law. The   general rule was that companies, whose 'central management and   control' was exercised in the State, were treated as resident here.   This rule or test emerged as a result of judicial decisions set down   in case law. Factors to be taken into account in establishing where   the company's central management and control lie include, for example,   where the important questions of company policy are determined, where   the majority of directors reside, where the negotiation of major   contracts is undertaken and where the company's head office is   located. Long story short:  An Irish incorporated company is not treated as Irish resident for tax   purposes if it is a 'relevant company' ... A Relevant Company is a   company that ... is ultimately controlled by persons resident in the   EU or in a country with which Ireland has concluded a double taxation   treaty
I am not sure how they do it in the Nordic countries, but here in the US a lot of company owners like myself are taxed through the corporation. So in effect, raising taxes on corporations is the same as raising taxes on the business owner. That being said, I kind of agree with the sentiment of the article. If you lower taxes on me and my company, that money is going into savings. That money isn't going to be reinvested. Our budget is where our reinvestment comes from, not extra cash at the end of the year.
"When one says that ""corporations are people"", in a legal sense, they are saying that they have the ability to enter into binding legal agreements in a manner similar to people. This allows corporations to do things like own a building or a car, or enter into a contract. This is so that an individual does not have to do so. This keeps individuals from being liable for the activities of the corporation (it also keeps the individual from running off the the corporation's car or selling the corporation's building).  If they are using it in any sense other than the legal sense, it's either hyperbole, ignorance, or pandering.  Now, if you set yourself up as LettersFromTheSky, Inc, then you would very well be able to get all the same tax deductions and benefits as a corporation. But you would also be liable for everything that a corporation is liable for (namely, a higher standard of reporting and different accounting methods)."
Increasing demand, the price people are willing to pay, will also increase profits, leading to the virtuous cycle you describe. The government spending tax dollars, also leads to growth.  The 2 sides balance out.  The difference between CEO pay and employee pay is that employees spend their money, while CEOs save money. So by taxing profits, money is put back into the economy.
I agree that double taxation makes no sense regardless of individual or corporation.  Having said that, it's my understanding that Murca offers corporations tax credits on foreign taxes paid to avoid double taxation.  I'm pretty sure that a similar vehicle exists for individuals as well.  My issue is entirely with corporations paying off legislators to avoid taxes that they have an obligation to pay in the country that they operate.
What do you think of the argument that corporations shouldn't pay any tax, since investors pay tax on the dividends, and if the corporations paid too, that would be double taxation?  Of course, not all corporate income goes to pay dividends. Much of the rest is deducted as business expense.  Is there some corporate income which should properly be taxed?
U.S. corporate tax rates are the [highest in the world](http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/pages/corporate-tax-rates-table.aspx), not the lowest. Politicians often rebut this fact by claiming that the U.S. has a much lower effective corporate tax rate, but they fail to account for all taxes. The marginal effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is still [much higher](http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-corporate-effective-tax-rate-myth-and-fact) than other developed countries.
"I have a degree in econ, but that hardly makes me an expert. Here is what I understand well enough to feel comfortable stating:  As you increase corporate taxes you decrease incentive for people to invest in corporations. Corporations are really a means of removing risk beyond initial investment to individuals who want to invest. If you were to set the corporate tax rate at 90% (as they do in the link) you would see more alternative investments locally and an incentive to invest where taxation isn't as high. Think of it this way, I could buy stock in apple but the corporate tax rate is 99%, then I would be better off buying a piece of property to rent, or a piece of stock in a country that has a normal corporate tax rate. An exorbitant corporate tax rate would encourage me to take on more personal risk and start my own sole proprietorship... even if I would be less qualified to do so than those in the corporation.   If you want an alternative school of economics to study [Austrian Economics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School) has a lot to offer.   In my opinion the NYT article makes quality points and is economically sound. The ""naturalfinance.net"" article is trash."
"OK, it's a bit of a minefield but here goes! You only pay corporation tax in the UK on any profit made, so your ""salary"" would not be classed as part of the profit, so in the example you give you would only pay corporation tax on £4k less your ""salary"" ie £3,200 so profit on the £800 remaining gross profit. You don't say if your figures are monthly, annual etc, but you only pay income tax if you earn over £11.5k in any given tax year, the rates increase as your income does, check here:  https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates You may have a different tax code, you would need to check that with HMRC but the link gives the ""default"" position which is correct for most people. https://www.itcontracting.com/limited-company-dividends/ If the figures you give are monthly then I would consult an accountant as they are likely to save you more than they will charge for their services. You will probably find it is most tax efficient to pay yourself a dividend from the company's profits but check with an accountant. More info: https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company/taking-money-out-of-a-limited-company"
In this case, consumers now have less to spend and save and the end result is the same. Finally, a firm unable to pass on a tax increase or bear the reduced profit will either attempt to cut costs by reducing wages (among other costs) or be forced to go out of business. **The main point is this: by definition, corporations do not pay taxes — people pay taxes. A corporate tax is either a tax on shareholders of the firm, customers of the firm, or employees of the firm. Less corporate tax means more innovation, capital savings, and spending by these groups — also known as economic growth.** **Empirically** After theory and logic tell us what is true, empiricism can confirm our result. Thankfully, Professors Young Lee (Hanyang University) and Rodger Gordon (UC — San Diego) have done the work for us. In a 2005 journal article they concluded, ""This paper finds that the corporate tax rate is significantly negatively correlated with economic growth in a cross-section data set of 70 countries during 1970–1997, controlling for many other determinants/covariates of economic growth."" More specifically, they continue, ""The estimates suggest that cutting the corporate tax rate by 10 percentage points can increase the annual growth rate by around 1.1%.""[3] Using these figures, Andrew Chamberlain of the Tax Foundation opines, **""by cutting the U.S.'s combined federal and average state corporate tax rate from roughly 40 percent to 30 percent we could boost U.S. economic growth by around 1.1 percent per year — enough to double our nation's wealth every 63 years.[4]""** **Even better, a cut from the actual corporate tax rate of 35% to a rate of 10% would double our nation's wealth every 30 years.** **Life Savers moved production to Canada. Nabor Industries and Tyco International moved to Bermuda. Halliburton has announced a move to Dubai. In a globalizing economy, is it really a puzzle that firms prefer to operate in lower-taxing, less-regulated environments?** These are examples of what can be seen. As Frédéric Bastiat reminds us, however, it is imperative to also account for what cannot be seen.
*Disclaimer: I am a tax accountant , but I am not your professional accountant or advocate (unless you have been in my office and signed a contract). This communication is not intended as tax advice, and no tax accountant / client relationship results. *Please consult your own tax accountant for tax advise.** A foreign citizen may form a limited liability company. In contrast, all profit distributions (called dividends) made by a C corporation are subject to double taxation. (Under US tax law, a nonresident alien may own shares in a C corporation, but may not own any shares in an S corporation.) For this reason, many foreign citizens form a limited liability company (LLC) instead of a C corporation A foreign citizen may be a corporate officer and/or director, but may not work/take part in any business decisions in the United States or receive a salary or compensation for services provided in the United States unless the foreign citizen has a work permit (either a green card or a special visa) issued by the United States. Basically, you should be looking at benefiting only from dividends/pass-through income but not salaries or compensations.
I guess. I just think it's stupid to think there's no difference between a corporation and it's owners. Once an organization of any kind reaches a certain size it becomes bigger than any shareholders, and consumes different types of public goods than any individual would. Kleenex uses different public goods than if all the shareholders just owned paper mills and paper stores in local towns, so it has a different kind of public contribution obligation.  I understand that principle that corporate income and dividends are theoretically the same thing, so shouldn't be taxed twice. I get the concept. But it just seems like another excuse to shift more income to people who own, rather than people who work. I support more money going to people who work for a living, not invest.
"No functional difference. Only impression/convenience. ""Business checks"" are checks in larger format (8"" instead of the regular 5"" checks), they can be from your personal account just as well. I didn't have any problem using the small ""individual""-standard checks for my company (I actually did get them for free from Wells Fargo, but that was a gesture, not by policy)."
Creating a corporation is not necessarily less taxes. In fact, you'll face the problem of double taxation, and since you must pay yourself a reasonable salary, if your corporation doesn't earn much to give you as dividend after the salary, and/or your tax bracket is low, you'll in fact may end up paying more taxes. Also there's a lot of bureaucracy involved in managing a corporation. Liability on the other hand is important, and what's more important - is asset separation and limiting the liability to the corporation assets, keeping your personal assets safe. To achieve that, you don't have to create a corporation, but you can create a Limited Liability Company (LLC). LLC are disregarded entities for tax purposes (i.e.: you won't have to pay taxes twice, only once as a sole proprietor/partner), but provide the liability limitation and asset separation. LLC's are much less formal, and require much less paperwork reducing the risk of corporate veil piercing because of non-compliance. I myself decided to manage my investments through LLC's for that very reason (asset separation).
I think companies should be able to reduce their tax burden to zero as long as they produce a net benefit to their host country. Taxes for corporations should be ways of influence and reducing cost of having the business in the country due to externalities like pollution and influence things like against outsourcing.
America has the highest corporate taxes in the world.  Moving your business out of the US is a smart decision that will likely end in benefits to the customer...IE lower prices.  But sure, if you want companies to stay in the US and customers to pay higher prices to compensate for those higher taxes...
"S-Corp is a corporation. I.e.: you add a ""Inc."" or ""Corp."" to the name or something of that kind. ""S"" denotes a specific tax treatment which may change during the lifetime of the corporation. It doesn't refer to a legal status."