vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"which means the current total is $548,100. Is that correct? Yep Unfortunately the ""current"" GM stock is different than the GM stock of 1989.  GM went bankrupt in 2011.  It's original stock changed to Motors Liquidation Company (MTLQQ) and is essentially worthless today.  There was no conversion from the old stock to the new stock. What do I do with these certificates? Can I bring them to my bank, or do I need to open an account with a stock company like Fidelity? See here for some instructions on cashing them in (or at least registering them electronically).  I've never dealt with physical stocks, but I presume that a broker is going to charge you something for registering them vs. direct registration, though I have no idea how much that would be. I read somewhere that I only have to pay taxes when I cash out these stocks. But are these rules any different because I inherited the stocks? You will pay capital gains tax on the increase in value from the time your father died to the time you sell the shares.  If that time is more than one year (and the stock has gone up in value) you will pay a 15% tax on the total increase.  If you have held them less than one year, they will be short-term capital gains which will count as regular income, and you will pay whatever your marginal tax rate is. If you sell the stock at a loss, then you'll be able to deduct some or all of that loss from your income, and may be able to carry forward losses for a few years as well. I did not catch that the stock you mention was GM stock.  GM went bankrupt in 2011, so it's likely that the stock you own is worthless.  I have edited the first answer appropriately but left the other two since they apply more generally.  In your case the best you get is a tax deduction for the loss in value from the date your father died."
&gt; Operating in a country that allows you to make profit, in my opinion, establishes a duty to pay one's fair share of taxes. Paying legislators to make laws enabling tax avoidance is, in my mind, unethical. Clearly we have a different idea of what is ethical and not.  You have stumbled upon the heart of exactly why Burger King's actions (and those of other companies that do similar things) are perfectly justified, although perhaps not in the manner you intended.   In the entire developed world, corporations are taxed at a certain rate on the income that they make as a result of business operations in that country.  In the US, US headquartered corporations are taxed at a certain rate not only on the income that they make a result of business operations in that country, but also on the income that they make as the result of business operations in other countries.   Operating in a country that allows you to make a profit established a duty to pay one's fair share of taxes. Operating in a country that allows you to make a profit does not establish any duty to pay one's fair share of taxes *to an entirely different country*. Or at least, no moral or ethical obligation to do so. The US may try to make a legal obligation to do so, but I certainly can't fault any company which tries to avoid that obligation, since the obligation is inherently unjust in the first place.  If you don't want companies doing stuff like this, might I suggest that your country should stop imposing such ridiculous tax laws, and get in line with the rest of the developed world. Every other country in the world is content to tax their fair slice of the pie for stuff that happens in their borders; only the US expects a bite out of everyone else's pie too.   Same should go for personal income earned by US citizens living abroad. They should have no obligation to pay US income taxes.
There are quite a few questions as to how you are recording your income and expenses.   If you are running the bakery as a Sole Proprietor, with all the income and expense in a business account; then things are easy. You just have to pay tax on the profit [as per the standard tax bracket].   If you running it as individual, you are still only liable to pay tax on profit and not turnover, however you need to keep a proper book of accounts showing income and expense. Get a Accountant to do this for you there are some thing your can claim as expense, some you can't.
Therefore the more they invest, the lower their tax bill. If you want companies to invest more, raise their tax rate. &gt; 4) I did hear from my professor and the educational videos he had shown us that the capital tax is one of the highest among the other OECD nations. I need to walk back what I said earlier. The US corporate tax rate is one of the highest. Does that mean US corporations pay the most tax? Well, [it's complicated](http://www.npr.org/2017/08/07/541797699/fact-check-does-the-u-s-have-the-highest-corporate-tax-rate-in-the-world). &gt; ...why can't we just close loop-holes instead of choosing to slash capital tax? Note that those go in opposite directions. Closing loopholes would make companies pay more. Slashing capital tax would have them pay less. Perhaps doing both would be revenue neutral. I would be in support of that because I suspect loopholes benefit big companies a lot more than small ones because they have the resources to find and exploit those loopholes. That said, people in power have been talking for 20 years about ""closing the loopholes"". They never do. [CGP Gray has an excellent video explaining why these loopholes are not going anywhere anytime soon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs). &gt; 5) I think it's in each company's best interest to further their own agenda, and that agenda usually means bad for the majority. Yes, that's a much better way of saying what I meant. &gt; Thank you in advance for your time. Sure, thanks for thinking, asking questions, and making up your own mind."
Uh...no, you didn't.  &gt;I wish I   You're talking about you, here, not businesses or corporations.  &gt;didn't have to pay taxes if I had less in the bank at the end of the year than at the beginning.  You're talking about not having any money and not having to pay tax.  What *I* said was that a corporation can very well have *no* money and have to pay tax.  A corporation's level of cash has no more bearing on its liability to pay taxes than does yours.
No, you can not claim any sort of tax benefit. The main problem is that your parent is not living with you, though even if they were, they would also have to be dependent on you. I cannot find a good definition of 'dependant', but from what I can find, they must have only a trivial amount of income and must rely on you for at least 50% of their living expenses. Useful links include: Note that your parent may (but probably won't) be required to pay taxes on the money you submit to them. I have no experience whatsoever with Indian tax law, just pointing this out as a possibility.
I would not recommend using your own money to pay off something that is not a strong asset. Use the savings where it will have the maximum return. Why not put (some of) the savings into another investment mortgage? Thanks to the leverage your return would be much higher than 5.5%, plus you would have more income.
Can't have a mobile workforce when you're tied to your desk because of your phone. Also why have a phone meeting when you can use Skype.   The company I work for has plans to get rid of landlines as well. I still have one but the only calls I get are unsolicited sales calls.
&gt;  I rarely go back to the USA but will still have to pay 35% tax...  Only if you have a really terrible accountant!  Seriously, the top tax rate that people like to rattle off in these kinds of stories is meaningless. Who pays the top tax rate? No one. Look at the effective tax rate, which is what is actually paid. I think it's something like 12%, which is actually quite competitive.  Now, it certainly takes wrangling to get there for a company and it would make a lot of sense to just make the rate 12% and get rid of all loopholes... but we can at least all stop pretending like corporations are paying 35%
No it wouldn't. You'd have to change the law to make **both** settlements and damages non-deductible.  In another comment on this thread I wrote about what's deductible and what's not. The **fine** paid to the government is not deductible. The **damages** or **restitution** paid to another party are.   Since a settlement is essentially damages and/or restitution paid to someone who's not the US Government, then it's deductible.   I haven't read the case law, but I'm sure that the argument is that since they got money that they shouldn't have in the first place, then they shouldn't have to pay taxes on it. Otherwise, what's to stop the IRS from making them pay taxes on phantom income all over the place?  The fine paid to the Govt is the punishment, and I'm sure that the prosecutors aren't complete morons and do take the tax consequences into consideration.
Taxing citizens on global income caused by tax inversion, not the cause of tax inversion.  If yourwebsite.com makes $1mil, and you pay yourwebsite.ca $1m for rights to the name, that's inversion.  Your company, and you, as the owner, have $1m income in Canada.  All of which came from US revenue.  I'm not saying the tax system is great or anything.  There just seems to be a miss understanding.
While the other answers are good, I wanted to expand a little on why I feel a ROTH is a bad way to go unless you are young. First, let's pretend you have a 25% tax rate. And your investments will go up 5% per year for 10 years. You contribute 6% of income for one year. You can do a traditional or a roth 401k/IRA. Here's the math: Traditional: 6% of income invested. Grows at 5% for 10 years. Taxed at 25% on withdrawl. = (Income * 6%) * (1.05 ^ 10) * (100% - 25%) = (Income * 6%) * 1.63 * .75 = 7.33% of your original income - but this is after taxes ROTH: Taxes taken out of income. Then 6% of that goes into the fund(s). Still grows at 5% for 10 years. Not taxed at withdrawl. = (Income * (100% - 25%) * 6%) * (1.05 ^ 10) = (Income * 75% * 6%) * 1.63 = 7.33% of your original income - again this is after taxes. Look familiar? They are the same. It's the simple transitive property of mathematics. So why do a traditional vs. a ROTH? The reason is that your tax bracket changes. This changes because your income changes. Say when you retire you plan to have your home or vehicle paid for. You expect to be able to live on $50,000 per year. This means when you make MORE than $50,000 you should do a traditional plan and when you make less than this you should do a ROTH plan. Example: You make $100,000 and your upper bracket is now 30%. You save 30% by doing a traditional and then pay back 10, 20, and 30% as you withdraw a salary of $50,000. Traditional = better. Example: You make $30,000 annually. Your upper bracket is 20%. You pay 20% on a roth.
"Yeah, that's all I could really think while I read this.  ""This sucks I'm going to have to actually pay full price to have things delivered overnight.  Why can't the post office keeps sending stuff for less than it costs to ship?"""
"I assume your employer does standard withholding?  Then what you need to do is figure what bracket that puts you in after you've done all your normal deductions.  Let's say it's 25%.  Then multiply your freelance income after business expenses, and that's your estimated tax, approximately.  (Unless the income causes you to jump a bracket.) To that you have to add approximately 12-13% Social Security/Medicare for income between the $90K and $118,500.  Filling out Form 1040SSE will give you a better estimate. But there is a ""safe harbor"" provision, in that if what you pay in estimated tax (and withholding) this year is at least as much as you owed last year, there's no penalty.  I've always done mine this way, dividing last year's tax by 4, since my income is quite variable, and I've never been able to make sense of the worksheets on the 1040-ES."
I have loved using AirBnB. I have found it easier to hire a maid to clean and it has been extremely financially advantageous for me.  Be sure to check out out regulations in your area regarding AirBnB.  I spoke with a personal advisor before I used AirBnB just to be sure that it would not affect my insurance, property taxes, as well income tax. It was very helpful to take this step before becoming a host!
Why not use the money and pay the cards off? You say you'll have no money to your name, and while that's true, you do have $36,000 in available credit should an emergency arise. If it were me, I'd pay them off, make every effort to live on the cash I have without using credit and leave the cards open as a source of emergency funds (new home theaters are not emergencies!) until I got enough savings built up to not have to use credit at all.
Okay yeah I have confirmed that. But why would Lenovo pay ~$3 billion for a phone company with no IP and, by this logic, would be open to lawsuits by Apple. AFIK Lenovo is still making phones under the Motorola brand. Actually, seems to be thriving.
Welcome to the working world.  I will answer these a bit out of order. C)  Your withholding has almost zero chance of being correct.  Just about everyone has to pay or gets a refund.  I typically shoot for +- of $1000, and that is tough. A)  Your W-2 is where you adjust the amount of tax that is withheld.  You should fill out a new one as soon as possible.  You can use a paycheck calculator to figure out the proper tax that should be withheld.   B) No. D)  Yes you will owe Utah state tax.  See this site. The rub of this all is that you may have to pay Idaho tax prior to being refunded your Federal.  If you want to avoid this file your federal return as soon as possible (Goal:  File by 7 Feb).  You should have the return in 3 weeks or less (presuming you are owed one).  That will give you plenty of time to file and pay any Idaho tax owed.   I say all of this because you may be tempted to go to a tax preparation shop and take an advance on your income tax return.  Those loans are for people that hate money and are designed to tempt the foolish.  They are only slightly better than payday loans.
&gt;But you also said that's not why we pay taxes  No, I didn't.   &gt;the fact that they're using the infrastructure isn't a good enough reason to pay taxes.  It's not. If everyone who used infrastructure paid income taxes than every person would pay some amount of income tax. Clearly just using infrastructure isn't considered a good enough reason to pay taxes now is it?
I'm not sure I am fully understanding the nuance of your question, but based on your answer in the comments you and your business are not separate legal entities. So your income is the full $70K, there is no distinct business to have income. If you clarify your question to include why you want to know this I might be able to give a more meaningful answer for your situation.
Can you elaborate on how corporate tax cuts exactly drain the economy and destroy jobs?    I feel like, going straight off text-book, his tax-plans make sense. It's very possible that I am a really confused student. (Currently second year student)  -edit  This is my interpretation of the capital-tax-gain-cut proposed by the Trump administration based on what I have learned in Micro/Macro-Econ thus far in college:   Less capital tax = less pressure on the wealthy/entrepreneurs (since you keep bigger portion of your net income, the interest to bring back business should increase) = capital inflow back to the US.    I feel like I'm missing something big here since a lot of folks seem to be against this, and I want to understand why something is the way it is. Thank you in advance.
Would you classify the Equifax scandal as a medium sized shock? I am 100% in agreement with your points, which is why when the Equifax news started to break I was very worried that was going to be the trigger. Why do you think that didn't have an impact, or could it still?
"The ""hire a pro"" is quite correct, if you are truly making this kind of money. That said, I believe in a certain amount of self-education so you don't follow a pro's advice blindly. First, I wrote an article that discussed Marginal Tax Rates, and it's worth understanding. It simply means that as your income rises past certain thresholds, the tax rate also will change a bit. You are on track to be in the top rate, 33%.  Next, Solo 401(k). You didn't ask about retirement accounts, but the combined situations of making this sum of money and just setting it aside, leads me to suggest this. Since you are both employer and employee, the Solo 401(k) limit is a combined $66,500. Seems like a lot, but if you are really on track to make $500K this year, that's just over 10% saved.   Then, whatever the pro recommends for your status, you'll still have some kind of Social Security obligation, as both employer and employee, so that's another 15% or so for the first $110K.  Last, some of the answers seemed to imply that you'll settle in April. Not quite. You are required to pay your tax through the year and if you wait until April to pay the tax along with your return, you will have a very unpleasant tax bill. (I mean it will have penalties for underpayment through the year.) This is to be avoided.  I offer this because often a pro will have a specialty and not go outside that focus. It's possible to find the guy that knows everything about setting you up as an LLC or Sole Proprietorship, yet doesn't have the 401(k) conversation.  Good luck, please let us know here how the Pro discussion goes for you."
I never said they were free markets what I did say is that they have no income tax and it works. If they wanted to fix a lot of those issues they have the budget to do so they just misallocate resources because they don't give a shit. Also that statement You made about the Bahamas is factually incorrect do some research.
Will I able to put the Rs amount back in the NRE account the same amount which I have paid against that house? If you have purchased the property by debiting an NRE account [you should have the paper trail], the same amount of funds can be transferred back to NRE Account. For example the house was for 50 lacs, and you paid Rs 30 lacs from NRE account, when you sell the house, you can transfer back only 30 lacs into the NRE account. Will I need to pay TAX on NRE account money before transferring out of India? You need not pay tax on the funds in NRE account. However if you have made gains by buying and selling a house [irrespective of the source of funds], you have to pay capital gains tax.
If this will be your sole income for the year, going self-employed is the best way to do this: So, here's how to go at it: Total cash in: £2000 Total Tax paid: £0 Admin overhead: approx 3 hours. Legit: 100%   :) Edit:  Can you tell me that in my case what are the required fields on the invoice? If you're non-VAT registered, there are no legal requirements as to what information you need to put on the invoice -it literally can be a couple of numbers on a napkin, and still be legit.  With that said, to make a professional appearance, my invoices are usually structured as follows: Left side: ( Sidenote: why client-specific incremental numbering? Why, so they can't make educated guesses to the number of clients I have at any given time :)  ) Right side: Center table: And so far, none of my clients missed any fields, so this should have everything they need to :) Hope this helps, but keep in mind, all of the above is synthetic sugar on the top -ultimately,  the relationship you share with your Clients is the thing you will (or will not) get paid for! Edit#2: The voices in my head just pointed out, that I've totally omitted National Insurance contributions in the above. However, and I quote HMRC: If your profits are expected to be less than £5,315 you may not have to pay Class 2 National Insurance contributions. Hence, this won't change the numbers above, either -just make sure to point this out during your registration in the office.
But why can't two companies exchange goods directly without paying VAT? This would make the famous carousel fraud scam impossible and businesses won't have to deal with complicated refunds. Sales tax in the United States works as you describe.  Sales tax is charged only to end customers, not to businesses that themselves charge sales tax.  But this means that a criminal business can charge tax and just pocket it unless someone else reports it.  They can also evade income tax the same way.  Not to mention other issues like cross jurisdiction taxes (e.g. internet sales often evade sales tax).   The whole point of a Value Added Tax (VAT) is that they charge at each level.  This creates a system where each buyer reports the tax paid to the seller so as to be able to deduct it.  So the seller has to pay the VAT that they charged.  Or the tax authorities know and can revoke their VAT license.   If only the end user is charged tax, then fraud is easier than under a VAT.  So easy, I doubt they have a special name for it.  The fraudulent business just collects tax from end users and disappears.  Or simply fails to record those transactions.  You could call it missing transaction record fraud, but why bother?  It's just straight up tax fraud.  The complexity of the carousel fraud arises from the difficulty of evading a VAT.
They better improve their coverage by double digits.  This is one family that's switching back to Verizon as soon as I pay off these damn phones.  I even have their microcell for my home and it still sucks so bad that I have to use wifi to make and receive calls.
If this is not all the proof you need that Fannie and Freddie need to be shut down completely, then nothing will ever convince you.  Have a TAX PAYER FUNDED entity buying shitty loans from corporate mega banks thereby making money for the banks at the expense of the people who work 9 to 5's paying taxes. Even if you're the most mega left person on /r/politics, if you can support Freddie and Fannie then I just want to cry. :(  130 billion in aid to both of those firms, all our tax payer money, money that could have paid for health care, better schools, roads, NASA, etc, but instead, it all went to the big banks.   Why would anyone want to support that? Because a few low income families might get a house? Why can't those people rent instead? Why can't they live within their means like most of us do?   :(
I don't want to deal with Walmart shoppers which is why I pay a premium to buy shit at Wholefoods.  If I have to deal with weird yoga ladies with hairy armpits *and* an entire obese family in scooters, I'm gonna end up going somewhere else.
What are the steps to bring the money to the US? It is worth 1.25 Crore and I have already paid the 20% tax in India. Under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme an Individual can repatriate funds upto USD 250,000 without any paperwork.  However most banks would be cautious and request for Form 15CA and Form 15CB if you are moving funds from NRO Account. Form 15 CA you would need to declare why you are moving the said funds. The Form 15 CB is to be filled by  Chartered Account certifying that relevant taxes have been already paid to Income Tax. Most Banks would offer these services. Compare the Fx Rate and Fees before you make a decision as to which Bank to proceed with.
As a sole trader you would fill out an Individual Tax Return and complete the Business and Professional Items Section P1 to P19, then enter the amounts from that section into Item 15 in the Supplementary Section of the Tax Return. Any business income as a sole trader will be included into your taxable income for the year together with other sources of income you may have earned in the same income year. Whether you get a tax refund will depend on the amount of taxable income you make, the amount of tax you have already paid in instalments throughout the year, and any tax deductions and tax offsets you can claim.