vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Can she claim deductions for her driving to and from work? Considering most people use their cars mostly to commute to/from work, there must be limits to what you can consider ""claimable"" and what you can't, otherwise everyone would claim back 80% of their mileage. No, she can't. But if she's driving from one work site to another, that's deductible whether or not either of the work sites is her home office. Can she claim deductions for her home office? There's a specific set of IRS tests you have to meet. If she meets them, she can. If you're self-employed, reasonably need an office, and have a place in your house dedicated to that purpose, you will likely meet all the tests. Can I claim deductions for my home office, even though I have an official work place that is not in my home? It's very hard to do so. The use of your home office has to benefit your employer, not just you. Can we claim deductions for our home internet service? If the business or home office uses them, they should be a deductible home office expense in some percentage. Usually for generic utilities that benefit the whole house, you deduct at the same percentage as the home office is of the entire house. But you can use other fractions if more appropriate. For example, if you have lots of computers in the home office, you can deduct more of the electricity if you can justify the ratio you use. Run through the rules at the IRS web page."
"Taxes are a tool for achieving social policy goals. While Americans consider ""Socialism"" to be a curse, the US is in fact quite socialistic. Mostly towards corporations, but sometimes even the normal people, not only the ""Corporation are people, my friend"" (M. Romney) get some discounts. The tax deduction on mortgage interest comes as a tool to encourage Americans to own their homes. It is important, socially, for people to own their home to be independent, and in general contributes to the stability of the society. As anything, when taken to the extreme, it in fact achieves exactly the opposite, as we've seen in 2008, but when balanced - works well. Capital gain is taxed in the US, because it is income. Generally, any income is taxed. However, gain sourced from the sale of primary residence is excluded, up to a certain (quite large) amount from this tax (if lived in the residence long enough - 3 of the last 5 years prior to sale). This, again, to encourage Americans to upgrade their houses and make it easier for Americans to relocate when needed (sell one house and buy another without losing cash on taxes). As to ""asset producing income"" - that is true in the US as well. You cannot deduct your personal expenses, in general. Mortgage interest on primary residence is a notable exception, because it serves a social cause. Similarly, medical expenses are allowed as a deduction, if they're above certain limit, and many other things (for example - if a US person totals his car, and insurance doesn't cover the loss - it is tax deductible, above certain limit, the higher the income - the higher the limit). These are purely social policy breaks. Socialism, something Americans like to have, and love to hate. Many ""anti-socialists"" in the US are in fact taking advantage of these specific tax breaks the most, because for rich folks these are limited or non-existent (mortgage interest limited up to 1 million, medical expenses are allowed only above certain percentage of income, etc)."
Because your profit from the capital IS 100 quid. Capital gains is not like running a business and doesn't come with tax deductions. It's up to you to pick saving scheme that maximizes your profit (either via low costs or highest possible rate).
Does your wife perform solo or in association with other actor/actresses and other volunteers? The latter arrangement sounds more like an unincorporated association or a partnership, which might be a bit freer to match the revenue and expenses.  By grinding through the proper procedures, it might be possible to get official non-profit status for it, as well.   Ask a professional.
If you're repairing an existing appliance - its an expense. If you're replacing an existing appliance with a new one - that's disposing of one capital asset and putting in service another. You depreciate the new one and you dispose of the old one (if not fully depreciated - talk to your tax adviser how to handle the remaining value). The additional costs of the fixes that are not related to the installation of the new appliance are regular maintenance expenses, so you have to get an itemized invoice from the plumber to know what to expense and what to capitalize.
As JoeTaxpayer illustrated, yes you can.  However, one thing to remember is that unless you live in a state with no state income tax, there may be state tax to pay on those gains.  Even so, it's likely a good idea if you expect either your income (or the federal capital gains tax rate) to rise in the future.
In general, when you take it out, it's out, and therefore useless unless you leave it in for a long time; (2) Income gets re-characterized to be fully taxable [no dividend tax credits, no reduced capital gains tax rate]; and (3) There is no guarantee that your tax rate on retirement will be less than today. If you contribute only when your tax rate is in the top bracket, then this is a good bet, but even still, in 30 years, tax rates might rise by 20% [who knows?], meaning you could end up paying more tax on the back-end, than you saved in the short term. Home Buyer Plan RRSP withdrawals My single favourite piece of advice for young Canadians is this: if you contribute to an RRSP at least 3 months before you make a down payment on your first house, you can withdraw up to $25k from your RRSP without paying tax! to use for the down payment. Then over the next ~10 years, you need to recontribute money back to your RRSP, and you will ultimately be taxed when you finally take the money out at retirement. This means that contributing up to 25k to an RRSP can multiply your savings available for a down payment, by the amount of your tax rate. So if you make ~60k, you'll save ~35% on your 25k deposited, turning your down payment into $33,750. Getting immediate access to the tax savings while also having access to the cash for a downpayment, makes the Home Buyer Plan a solid way to make the most out of your RRSP, as long as one of your near-term goals is to own your own home. Registered Pension Plans are even less liquid than RRSPs. Tax-wise, they basically work the same: you get a deduction in the year you contribute, and are taxed when you withdraw. The big difference is that there are rules on when you are allowed to withdraw: only in retirement [barring specific circumstances]. Typically your employer's matching program (if you have one) will be inside of an RPP. Note that RPP's and RRSP's reduce your taxes on your employment paycheques immediately, if you contribute through a work program.
Any increase in the value of land will increase the amount of rates and the land tax you pay, and generally your insurance and maintenance costs will increase with time. However, your interest and mortgage repayments will reduce over time. Will your rent increases cover your increases in the expenses. From all the items above you should be able to work out an estimate of your net rental gain or loss for each year. Again do this for the number of years you are looking to hold the property for and then sum up the total to give a net profit or loss. If there is a net loss from the income, then you need to consider if the net capital gain will cover these losses and still give you a reasonable return over the period you will own the property. Below is a sample calculation showing most of the variables I have discussed.
It's when the recipient decides to sell the stock that the issue of valuation comes up—for income taxes. And this is where things can get a bit more complicated. In general, when valuing a gift of stock for capital gains tax liability, it's the donor's cost basis and holding period that rules. As an example, let's say you receive a gift of stock from your grandfather. He bought it for $10 a share and it's worth $15 a share on the day you receive it. If you then sell the stock, whether for a gain or a loss, your cost basis will be the same as your grandfather’s: $10 per share. Sell it at $25 and you'll pay tax (at the short- or long-term rate, depending on how long he owned the stock) on a gain of $15 a share; sell it at $8 and your capital loss will be $2 a share. Ultimately, with a gift this large that also crosses international borders, you really should hire a professional who is experienced with these types of transactions. Their fees/commission will be completely offset by the savings in risk and paperwork. http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/How-Do-You-Value-a-Gift-of-Stock-It-Depends-on-Whether-You-re-the-Giver-or-the-Receiver
The capital gain is counted as part of your income. So with a million capital gain you will be in a high tax bracket, and have to pay the corresponding capital gains tax rate on the million.
But that's more work than most con men go to. I've gotten lots of pleas for contributions from people who call on the phone or come to my door or send an email. If the message does not have a logo, a mailing address and phone number, reasonably coherent English, and a fair amount of text describing what they do, I don't give them anything. They COULD be a new start up that hasn't had time to prepare these things. They COULD believe that pretty flyers are a waste of money and they want to put all their resources into helping the needy. But more likely it's a scam that somebody through together in his basement. Of course the best thing is if you personally know people who are officers in the organization. (Well, assuming you personally know them AND you know that they are honest people. If you know the president and you know he's a sleazy con man, you might want to stay away from that group.) See if you can find information about the charity in the news or on-line. If they're being investigated for fraud by the Justice Department, you might want to avoid them. Etc. Maybe you've thought this through, but you also might want to think about exactly who in Greece you want to help, and what your philosophy of charity is. Do you want to help people who lost their jobs because of the economic problems there and who are now unemployed? Do you want to donate to the government to help them balance the budget? Do you want to help support an orphanage or a homeless shelter, or give money directly to needy people? Etc. And one piece of unsolicited advice: Unless you have millions to give -- and I'm assuming you don't as you said your first gift would be $50 -- I'd pick one or two charities and give regularly to them. I think you can do more good by giving $X per month to a single charity than to give to a different charity every month. You make more difference.
In my opinion, I would: If the income is from this year, you can tax shelter $59,000 plus somewhere between $50,000 and $300,000 depending on age, in a 401(k) and defined benefit plan. This will take care of the current tax burden. Afterwards, set aside your remaining tax liability in cash. The after-tax money should be split into cash and the rest into assets. The split depends on your level of risk tolerance. Build a core portfolio using highly liquid and non-correlated ETFs (think SPY, TLT, QQQ, ect.). Once these core positions are locked in. Start lowering your basis by systematically selling a 1 standard deviation call in the ETF per 100 units of underlying. This will reduce your upside, extend your breakeven, and often yield steady income. Similarly, you can sell 1 standard deviation iron condors should the VIX be high enough. Point is, you have the money to deploy a professional-type, systematic strategy that is non-correlated, and income generating.
"If you are not taking any of the options in the Flexible Benefit Plan, then everything is taxable. Check about ""Retirals"", the practise differs from organization to organization. Some pay it out annually and some only pay on completion of certain duration on exit. So Deduct 47K from 7 lacs. Gross of around 653,000. Total tax for this around 53,000. After tax yearly around 600,000. Individual contribution to PF@ 12% of basic around 33,600. Net Yearly around 567,225. So net take home would be around 47,268. You can easily take items 3,6,7,8 around 62,400. Thus you will save tax of around 13,000. So take home will increase 1,080."
"I'll answer your second question: it depends what your charity is for. There are two types: i) Emergency (i.e. to respond to environmental or social disasters where it acts a bit like an insurance policy); ii) Development (i.e. where the intention is to subsidise something missing in the local economy); A lack of insurance is certainly a problem for people who lose their homes and livelihoods to disaster.  Your donations can go far. As for development aid: ""We find little evidence of a robust positive correlation between aid and growth,"" write two ex-IMF economists, Raghuram Rajan, who stepped down as IMF chief economist at the end of 2006, and Arvind Subramanian, who left the IMF this year. ""One of the most enduring and important questions in economics is whether foreign aid helps countries grow ... There is a moral imperative to this question: it is a travesty for so many countries to remain poor if a relatively small transfer of resources from rich countries could set them on the path to growth ... But if there is no clear evidence that aid boosts growth, then handing out more money makes little sense,"" they conclude. I do somewhat further in declaring that charity is equivalent to trade dumping.  By artificially lowering the real cost of a particular good it ensures that there will be no local investment in that good.  Free clothes to Africa has destroyed the local textiles industry.  Free doctors has resulted in more African doctors in New York than in the whole of Africa. So decide where your charity is going: emergencies or development?  Then decide what you can afford.  But your first investment should always be in yourself.  If by making use of that investment you can benefit the economy and keep others around you employed and productive you will achieve far more."
You may be complaining now about fees on a small balance, and yes you should try to minimise these fees, not only when you have a small balance but also when your balance is larger, but the tax advantages available through superannuation will really come into play when you are on a high income paying the tax at or near the highest marginal tax rate. Compare the top marginal tax rate (plus Medicare Levy) at 46.5% compared to the tax rate of 15% on super contributions and investment returns. And it gets better, when you retire and take a pension or lump sum from your super after age 60 you pay zero tax on the income stream or lump sum. and you also pay zero tax on any ongoing investment returns in your super. The benefits of superannuation are numerous, and the best way to reduce your fees for now is to find a fund with lowest fees, try to increase your balance so your percentage fees go down, and try to consolidate all your super funds into the one with the lowest fees, if you have more than one super fund.
"You may have misunderstood some parts of the system. If you make a pension contribution in any given year, the tax relief is based on your income for that year - the gross pension contribution is subtracted from your gross income and you only end up paying tax based on the reduced gross income. So if the higher rate threshold is £40K, you have income for the year of £65K, and you make a gross contribution of £25K, then you'll get tax relief at 40% on the whole contribution, i.e. £10K. If your income for the year is less, e.g. £50K, then you'll get tax relief at 40% on £10K and at 20% on the other £15K, i.e. £7K. So if you're significantly into the higher-rate band, it's usually not worth making a contribution large enough to reduce you to basic-rate tax - better to wait till the next tax year for the rest. Overall, while you probably could do what you suggest subject to the caveats below, why not just spread the pension contribution over the three years, rather than making it all up front? If you are confident you can invest the money at better than the 3.4% interest on the loan, then it might make sense to borrow, but you should be pretty clear that you're deliberately borrowing to invest (otherwise known as investing with leverage). Or you might know that your income is going to drop next year. Another clarification, as your comment on another answer mentions: basic-rate tax relief is claimed directly by your pension provider (""relief at source""), whereas the higher-rate part of the relief comes straight to you via your tax return. So for the above £25K gross contribution example, you'd hand over £20K initially and then get £5K back at the end of the tax year, leaving you with £15K less in your pocket. If you did want to make a £20K net contribution and had enough higher-rate salary to cover it, the gross contribution you'd end up with would be £33,333, and you'd need to find £6,666 more temporarily.
Assuming the funds are being transferred for his treatment, Yes it should be added to your income and taxed at the bracket you fall into. This is same as a person walking into your clinic and paying you cash/cheque/credit card to get treated.
Yes go TFSA first. Unless you make a lot of salary and want to lower your taxes.  In this case RRSP might be the way to go. But seeing as you're 30 and probably will make greater salary in the future, go TFSA.
I can't say specifically about charities to help Greece. If someone on here has specific knowledge, please chime in. The only shortcut I know to tell if a charity is legitimate is to consult one of the ratings/watchdog type groups that monitor charities. For example, for explicitly Christian charities, there's a group called the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. To be a member in good standing a charity has to meet a bunch of criteria, like having an independent board of directors, i.e. you can't start a charity, make yourself the president and your brother-in-law the vice president and you're not answerable to anyone else; their fund-raising and administrative costs can't be more than a certain percentage of total income, etc. There are similar groups with similar standards for more general charities. I'm not naming any of those groups because there's a potential catch: How reputable is the group that rates other people's reputations? And I don't want to recommend someone without knowing. Years ago I came across a news story about an organization that rated colleges, and that had given one particular college their top rating. But, the news story said, investigators found that that one college was the ONLY college they ever gave a rating to, and that their address was the same as the college's address. It turned out, of course, that the college was a scam. The other method is to take some time to investigate the charity. For starters, get a copy of their annual report or their newsletter. If they're total frauds, often they don't have an annual report or a newsletter. Of course a fraud could make up beautiful flyers describing all the wonderful work they do, with pictures of people they helped and detailed case histories, and it's all complete fiction. But that's more work than most con men go to. I've gotten lots of pleas for contributions from people who call on the phone or come to my door or send an email. If the message does not have a logo, a mailing address and phone number, reasonably coherent English, and a fair amount of text describing what they do, I don't give them anything. They COULD be a new start up that hasn't had time to prepare these things.
For people who are good with money (presumably), Kiva.org gives your money to such people who apply for loans through social service organizations in various countries (I believe this is how it's done). The people state what they will use the money for. It can be as simple as 'buying provisions for food truck business' or 'replacing wheels on tractor.' Then they pay the money back and you (who donated x number of dollars) use that repaid money to make another loan.
Jesus Christ, it's not just the income tax rate. It's all the other bullshit that he'd be required to provide to his employees that would reduce his net income from the business to a point that it is no longer worth his time and stress to deal with it.
Go where your money is treated best.  If you can lower your APR, great. It should help a little bit with getting a mortgage if you can reduce your payment.  Your debt-to-income ratio would go down.
"Well, the article does go into certain tax schemes. You can use the debt as a write-off to lower your tax rate. That's just a legal tax scheme in the UK and many other countries. The problem though is that the UK department of Starbucks is apparently very profitable:  &gt; US executives of the Seattle company claiming in telephone calls with investors [...] that the UK business was profitable.  and  &gt; Howard Schultz, told investors the business here was so successful he planned to apply the lessons to the company's biggest market in the US.  It's just that the books tell a different story:  &gt; Accounts filed with Companies House [...] showed a 10th consecutive annual loss.  So no, it's not a just a matter of revenue vs sales. It's a matter of boosting your losses with outside, sometimes artificial debt, just so you can run with a negative on the books. This lowers the tax rate on the true sales to a whopping 0.3%, even though the business is perfectly healthy.   That's misusing a tax scheme aimed at easing the tax burden on ""national"" businesses which aren't profitable."
As far as taxes go: If you contribute to the HSA account through your employer pre-tax, that amount is not subject to the Social Security (6.2%) and the Medicare (1.45%) tax. If you contribute that amount post-tax, you can deduct it from your income tax at the end of the year, but the Social Security and Medicare taxes have already been paid and there's no mechanism to claim deductions on those.
The donor might need to pay gift tax if they give money directly to you. Paying the tuition on your behalf (giving the money directly to the school) is exempt from gift tax. But that's not your problem, it is the donor's. There's no tax on receiving gifts, and you're not forbidden to receive gifts by virtue of being on a visa.