vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
In many cases spanning across years will indeed be beneficial. Deductions: You get to take twice as much in deductions (twice the standard deduction, or itemizing - if you can) when you span over two years than in one.  IRA: You can only contribute in years when you have earned income. You have all the income in year 1 and none in year 2 - you can only contribute in year 1. You have half of the income in year 1 and half of the income in year 2 - you can contribute in both years (up to the limit/earned income, whichever is less). Social Security: You get 4 credits for each year you earned ~16K in. You earned 32K in year 1, and nothing in year 2 - you get 4 credits. You split it in half for each year - you get 8 credits. The list can go on. If you can do the planning ahead of time and can chose the time periods of your work freely (which is not something most people can do), you can definitely plan ahead with taxes in mind. This is called Tax Planning.
The numbers you have quoted don't add up. For Rs 30,000 / month is 3,60,000 a year. The tax should be around 11,000 again this will be reduced by the contributions to PF. You have indicated a tax deductions of 18,000. There are multiple ways to save taxes. Since you are beginner, investments into section 80C should give you required tax benefits. Please read this article in Economic Times
"It is called context. You want to drop context to make your comment seem less silly. You could just say ""oh hey man, thats not what I meant"" but instead you want to play semantics and try your best to be technically correct in your head. Ok so you win, if we drop the context of this discussion and leave your comment in a void it says one thing. In the context of this discussion it says another. To some readers in this context some will see you as correct contextually because they agree with you, some will see you as correct technically because this is reddit and we have a hard-on for technicalities and then others like myself will look at the context and expect some sort of continuity with the context here.   You could try to clarify your comments understanding that we perhaps are not all best selling writers or you could get your parts in a knot and start an argument on the internet. what you do from here is up to you.   EDIT: Also you never did answer my question about high school/GEDs being good enough in your world are we dodging or are you just that fired up that I want to apply context to your statements?"
There are certain situations where you could legally pay yourself rent, but it'd be in the context of multiple business entities interacting, never in the context of an individual renting their own property.  Even if you could, any rent paid to yourself would count as rental income, so there'd be no benefit. Edit: I was hunting for examples where it might be acceptable, and didn't, but I found a good explanation as to why it is not acceptable from Brandon Hall on a BiggerPockets post: To get technical, you will be going up against the Economic Substance   Doctrine which states that a transaction has economic substance if:   (1) the transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart from Federal   income tax effects) the taxpayer’s economic position; and (2) the   taxpayer has a substantial purpose (apart from Federal income tax   effects) for entering into such transaction. By transferring your primary residence into a LLC, you would not be   changing your economic position. Further, you do not have a   substantial purpose for entering into such transaction other than to   simply avoid paying federal income taxes. So it might make sense if multiple people owned the LLC that owned the property you wanted to rent, and there are instances where company X owns holding company Y that owns an office building that company X rents space in. But if you're the sole player in the LLC's then it sounds like a no-go.
"Ed: Saw your comment, thank you. The short answer (a rough simplification), seems to be that you pay PA income tax for income made in PA. You pay IL income tax for income made in IL, not income made across both states. And you make sure the IL amount paid is correct via a credit calculated on Schedule CR. It looks to me (bear with me, I am no expert on tax law in IL, PA, or in general, so consult a professional for ""good"" advice :), like you basically do this on Schedule CR: It looks like there may be some more pertinent info on Publication 111, so that may potentially change the math a bit too. This check is 2014 income, during which you are a resident of IL. It's income from a PA employer. You must file a tax return in PA regardless, since you ""earned income in PA"". Did your former employer withhold PA income taxes on this particular paycheck? I'm not seeing where it says you should not include tax withheld; could you please point that out? Perhaps they mean you should only include tax actually considered ""due"" on the PA tax return. From IL's Schedule CR instructions: What is the purpose of Schedule CR?   Schedule CR, Credit for Tax Paid to Other States, allows you to   take a credit for income taxes you paid to other states on income   you received while a resident of Illinois. You are allowed this credit   only if you filed a required tax return with the other state. You must   use information from the tax return you filed with the other state to   complete Schedule CR.   ...    What taxes qualify for the credit?   Taxes that qualify for the credit are income taxes you paid to another   state of the United States,"
"The answer is simple -- your new job pays more than your old one.  As such, you're in a higher tax withholding bracket, even with the same number of deductions as before. Your withholding is computed based on how much you make each pay period, and the number of pay periods in the year.  So, if you were being paid weekly before then it was based on the assumption you made the same amount for every pay period in the calendar year.  This is why tax varies from week to week for hourly employees and people being paid overtime.  In your new job, you're being paid ""semi-monthly"", which makes for 24 pay periods rather than the 52 pay periods when you were paid weekly, so the amount of withholding (in dollar terms) is going to be much greater than when you were being paid weekly.  Add in the fact you're making $2,000 more (a month, I presume?), so that's $24,000 a year more.  It's definitely going to bump you into a different earning bracket for taxes, so even with the same number of deductions, you're going to pay more now. This isn't to say you won't be able to recoup some of that at the end of the year when you file your taxes, since your current withholding rate may have you over-paying.  As such, you'll see a nice refund. One final note -- You always have the option of changing your withholding if you like.  Many people will do that, claiming minimal deductions for the first few months of the year to let the maximum withholding take place, then they'll adjust their withholding deductions in the second half of the year to capture more in each paycheck.  If done right, it makes no difference in the total amount withheld, but it does allow the checks at the latter part of the year to be bigger than if withholding deductions were kept the same throughout."
"My number one piece of advice is to see a tax professional who can guide you through the process, especially if you're new to the process. Second, keep detailed records. That being said, I found two articles, [1] and [2] that give some relevant details that you might find helpful. The articles state that: Many artists end up with a combination of income types: income from regular wages and income from self-employment. Income from wages involves a regular paycheck with all appropriate taxes, social security, and Medicare withheld. Income from self-employment may be in the form of cash, check, or goods, with no withholding of any kind. They provide a breakdown for expenses and deductions based on the type of income you receive. If you get a regular paycheck: If you've got a gig lasting more than a few weeks, chances are you will get paid regular wages with all taxes withheld. At the end of the year, your employer will issue you a form W-2. If this regular paycheck is for entertainment-related work (and not just for waiting tables to keep the rent paid), you will deduct related expenses on a Schedule A, under ""Unreimbursed Employee business expenses,"" or on Form 2106, which will give you a total to carry to the schedule A. The type of expenses that go here are: If you are considered an independent contractor (I presume this includes the value of goods, based on the first quoted paragraph above): Independent contractors get paid by cash or check with no withholding of any kind. This means that you are responsible for all of the Social Security and Medicare normally paid or withheld by your employer; this is called Self-Employment Tax. In order to take your deductions, you will need to complete a Schedule C, which breaks down expenses into even more detail. In addition to the items listed above, you will probably have items in the following categories: Ideally, you should receive a 1099 MISC from whatever employer(s) paid you as an independent contractor. Keep in mind that some states have a non-resident entertainers' tax, which is A state tax levied against performers whose legal residence is outside of the state where the performance is given.
"First, let's look at the tax brackets for single taxpayers in 2016: The cutoff between the 25% and 28% tax bracket is $91,150. You said that your gross is $87,780. This will be reduced by deductions and exemptions (at least $10,350). Your rental income will increase your income, but it is offset in part by your rental business expenses. For this year, you will almost certainly be in the 25% bracket, whether or not you receive your backpay this year. Next year, if you receive your backpay then and your salary is $11k higher, I'm guessing you'll be close to the edge. It is important to remember that the tax brackets are marginal. This means that when you move up to the next tax bracket, it is only the amount of income that puts you over the top that is taxed at the higher rate. (You can see this in the chart above.) So if, for example, your taxable income ends up being $91,160, you'll be in the 28% tax bracket, but only $10 of your income will be taxed at 28%. The rest will be taxed at 25% or lower. As a result, this probably isn't worth worrying about too much. A bit more explanation, requested by the OP: Here is how to understand the numbers in the tax bracket chart. Let's take a look at the second line, $9,276-$37,650. The tax rate is explained as ""$927.50 plus 15% of the amount over $9,275."" 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.
"Please declare everything you earn in India as well as the total amount of assets (it's called FBAR). The penalties for not declaring is jail time no matter how small the amount (and lots of ordinary people every 2-3 years are regularly sent to jail for not declaring such income). It's taken very seriously by the IRS - and any Indian bank who has an office in the US or does business here, can be asked by IRS to provide any bank account details for you. You will get deductions for taxes already paid to a foreign country due to double taxation, so there won't be any additional taxes because income taxes in US are on par or even lower than that in India. Using tricks (like transferring ownership to your brother) may not be worth it. Note: you pay taxes only when you realize gains anyway - both in India or here, so why do you want to take such hassles.  If you transfer to your brother, it will be taxed only until you hold them. Make sure you have exact dates of gains between the date you came to US and the date you ""gifted"" to your brother. As long as you clearly document that the stocks transferred to your brother was a gift and you have no more claims on them, it should be ok, but best to consult a CPA in the US. If you have claims on them, example agreement that you will repurchase them, then you will still continue to pay taxes. If you sell your real estate investments in India, you have to pay tax on the gains in the US (and you need proof of the original buying cost and your sale). If you have paid taxes on the real estate gains in India, then you can get deduction due to double tax avoidance treaty. No issues in bringing over the capital from India to US."
The most likely additional deduction would be the one for an IRA (Individual Retirement Account). Although you might be better off doing a Roth anyway (no tax deduction). If you are self-employed or making more than $100,000 a year, there are additional issues. But most people aren't. If you filled out a W-4 and will get a W-2 back, you aren't self-employed. Hopefully you have a rough idea of your annual income. The first $9275 over your deductions will pay 10%. After that, up to $37,650 you pay 15%. The 2016 link above has a link (PDF) to the full table if you need more than that. Note that that is the first $48,000 in income with your $10,350 in deductions.
Please consult a tax advisor.   You may be voilating the FEMA [Foreign Exchange Management Act] and can land into trouble.  Further what you are doing can land up into various other acts as illegal including AML.   Further if there is income generated by Indian citizen in India, he is still liable to pay tax, irrespective of whether you get the funds back into India. Edit: AML is Anti Money Laundering. Your transaction is sure to raise AML triggers as it looks like converting Black Money to White in round about way. Once the triggers are raised, RBI division will investigate further to verify what you are doing. If you are able to prove that this is a valid transaction, you would be OK on AML front. How will Income Tax Know? - If they don't know does not mean you are not liable for tax. - Any suspicious transactions would get investigated and sooner or later Income Tax would know about it and can cause a serious problem. - It is irrelevant where you have kept the money, if you have earned something, its taxable. For it not to be taxable you need to conduct this business differently.  Please consult a tax adviser who will advice you on the tax-ability of this type of transaction.
You need to clarify with Bob what your agreement is. If you and Bob are working together on these jobs as partners, you should get a written partnership agreement done by a lawyer who works with software industry entity formation. You can legally be considered a partnership if you are operating a business together, even if there is nothing in writing. The partnership will have its own tax return, and you each will be allocated 50% of the profits/losses (if that's what you agree to). This amount will be reported on your own individual 1040 as self-employment income. Since you have now lost all the expense deductions you would have taken on your Schedule C, and any home office deduction, it's a good idea to put language in the partnership agreement stating that the partnership will reimburse partners for their out-of-pocket expenses. If Bob is just hiring you as a contractor, you give him your SSN, and he issues you a 1099, like any other client. This should be a situation where you invoice him for the amount you are charging. Same thing with Joe - figure out if you're hiring him as an independent contractor, or if you have a partnership. Either way, you will owe income and self-employment tax on your profits. In the case of a partnership, the amount will be on the K-1 from the partnership return. For an independent contractor who's operating as a sole proprietor, you report the income you invoiced for and received, and deduct your expenses, including independent contractors that you hired, on your Schedule C. Talk to your tax guy about quarterly estimated payments. If you don't have a tax guy, go get one. Find somebody people in your city working in your industry recommend. A good tax person will save you more money than they cost. IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.
It's really hard to explain until you've been inside one. There's one here in San Jose and it was a magical experience. Shit you not. In other bookstores you'll be lucky to find a recommended book section, and even rarer to find some kind of context about why the book is good (say a blurb or review). All the books in the front have a blurb from Amazon reviews and average star rating. At another end of the store there are recommendations based on other popular books.   It's as if Amazon made a bookstore for people who actually like reading books.
Follow the instructions on the W-4. It says exactly how you are supposed to calculate the number of allowances. You shouldn't have to figure out how to get the right number. Just follow the instructions. The only part at all complex is if you have large deductions. In that case you're supposed to subtract a standard amount from your actual deductions -- for 2017, $12,700 if married filing jointly -- divide by $4,050, and then add the result to the number of allowances. In general, following the instructions on the W-4 should result in slightly more tax being withheld from your paycheck than you actually owe, so that you get a modest refund next April 15. In the long run it doesn't matter if you have too much withheld, as you'll get it all back eventually anyway. I suppose the withholding could be so high that it doesn't leave you enough to live on while waiting for your refund, but that shouldn't normally be the case. If you pay too little, you could be subject to penalties and interest, so you really want to avoid that.
"It's not so much a matter of your age as it is a matter of what your current tax rate is vs. what your tax rate will be when you take out the money.  As long as your current tax rate is lower than what you anticipate it will be when you withdraw the money, it makes sense to pay the tax now. Of course you can't know for certain what your tax rate will be when you take out your money, but the answer for most people is going to be ""higher than it is now"".  Some reasons why: As you age you start to lose deductions (home mortgage gets paid off, kids grow up and move out).  You likely won't gain any new deductions that would lower your tax rate as you age, you'll only lose them. Tax rates now are historically low, and budget deficits are high.  That means that higher tax rates are almost certainly coming. So unless your circumstances are very unusual, I would pretty much always recommend saving after-tax dollars. Now that I've said that, I'll throw a small wrench into that plan - when you save with a Roth IRA, you are paying taxes today with the anticipation that you won't have to pay taxes later.  But this may not necessarily be the case: The government could decide to tax Roth IRA gains in the future (would be a very unpopular move, but if they decided to do it, who's to stop them?) The government could change the tax system by lowering income tax rates and creating a VAT, or instituting something like the ""Flat Tax"".  Your Roth money is exempt from income tax, but not from a VAT or national sales tax. So, you also need to consider the possibility of those things happening and how that would affect you.  Ten years ago nobody would have dreamed of the US having a VAT, but now it looks more and more possible."
"In 2013, an allowance/exemption is like saying, ""Please don't tax $3,900 this year."" So 8 allowances is $31K not taxed. It doesn't wipe out your tax withholding.  Circular E will show you the exact amount they'll withhold based on the allowances you claim.  Keep in mind, the withholding is run-rated. i.e. it assumes a full year of work. If you had no income for the first 6 months of the year, you will actually still have too much withheld even though the number is right for the full year, starting 2014."
Because the question puts moral obligations aside, I'll answer from the practical point of view. There are two reasons for declaring side income, even cash income. If you buy a house in a year or two, the additional income will help qualify you for a mortgage.  The IRS has ways to discover that you earned the money.  a. A client might be audited. If the client deducts the cost of your services from their income, they could be asked for proof that they paid you. Suppose they saved ATM receipts that show the withdrawals of cash used to pay you, and kept records that document the dates they paid you. The IRS might want to ask you if you were paid by the client on those dates, and how much. The asking might be in the form of an audit, and you'd have to lie to the IRS to avoid penalty. b. A client might develop a grudge against you and report you to the IRS. Someone could do this even if they don't know for sure that you don't declare the income. If you were interviewed or audited, you'd have to lie to the IRS to avoid penalty. c. You could fall prey to an algorithm. There might be one that compares deductions and income. If you run a crazy-high ratio year after year, you could be flagged for audit. Once again, you'd have to lie to avoid penalty.
"Gross income is used because there are a lot of variables inherent in the calculation of a ""net income"", including a lot of things under your direct control that you could use to game the system. ""Net Income"", as others have inferred, is a very flexible term. For the average individual, the definition that would most easily come to mind is likely post-deduction, post-tax earnings; ""take-home pay"". It sounds reasonable, too, as the amount you take home each month can be easily demonstrated with your two most recent pay stubs (which you need to bring in anyway to verify gross earnings). However, even that simplistic definition is fraught with possibility. You have the ability to modify your pre-tax deductions, such as for retirement or healthcare, and that in turn affects your taxes and thus your net take-home pay. To assume that you won't do that is foolish for the loan officer. Other definitions of ""net income"", such as, in the case of shopping for a house, ""disposable income plus current rent"", are the result of even longer lists of deductions from gross pay. Many are also dependent on your current home; your electric bill is a function of the size, location and construction of your current home, all of which will change as soon as you move in. Your other bills, such as telecom (TV/phone/internet) are also more or less location-dependent, as even within a single city or metro area, your choice of services and service providers is dictated by the home's physical location. You may have to pay through the nose right now because your current home isn't serviced by anyone's fiber-optic network, while the home you're moving into could be in a hotly-contested area with access to multiple fiber-optic trunks. So, to simplify all this, mortgage companies simply ask for gross income, then apply a metric that makes relatively conservative assumptions about your spending habits to arrive at a final amount. The upside is simplicity, the downside being that two people both making $60,000/yr may have two completely different financial pictures behind that single number."