vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"The simple answer would be - if you want to take Euros from Germany to Spain as cash and deposit them, you're not breaking any laws, there is nothing to declare to customs (you're still in the EU), it is not ""income"" so there is nothing to tax, and your bank should be able to receive it without issue (no currency conversion after all). It does however come with the risk of loss/theft en route. So it really depends on how comfortable you are walking around with that much on your person. If you don't want to carry that much around and your banks are imposing unreasonable fees, here's something you could investigate further (I have not tested it myself): Transferwise offers a service that lets people send money to foreign accounts (in different currencies) for a small fee, at mid-market rates. However, they also offer a ""request money"" feature which allows EUR-EUR transfers (and some other same currency transfers). So perhaps you could use this feature to simply request money from yourself. The requester puts in how much they want to receive. Then they send a generated link to the other party. When clicked, that link sets up a transaction for the requested amount, and sometimes a nominal fee (I created a link for a GBP-GBP transfer and it wanted 1 pound extra, but when I did the same for EUR-EUR it didn't want any extra). I assume you would need two Transferwise accounts, though maybe not? And I'm not sure whether doing this is technically allowed in their terms of service, so you should read those to be sure. The advantage, if this works, is that neither bank sees it as a ""transfer"". Rather, the originating bank makes a payment to Transferwise, and then Transferwise makes a deposit to the receiving account. So I can't imagine either bank would be able to impose their foreign-bank-transfer fees for the transaction. https://transferwise.com/request-money I have used Transferwise for currency conversions, but not the request money feature, maybe other users could chime in if they have used it."
&gt; To be honest we are probably wrong in trying to tax foreign earnings.  [We only tax foreign earnings when the money is repatriated to the US](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-current-system-international-taxation-work).  You think businesses should be able to go to the Bahamas, sell vast property to another American, and return the profit to the US tax free?  &gt; The US should learn the get on with less.  I'm all for discussing that idea.  Cut the spending before you talk about cutting the taxes that fund it.
Seems like I see an article like this posted at least once a month. We already know they're holding cash overseas. We already know it's because of taxes. No, Americans are not entitled to that money. No, the govt wouldn't actually spend it all on schools and hospitals and infrastructure. Yes, we need to reform the tax code.
&gt; Our corporations pay some of the lowest taxes in the world, with some of the larger ones actually paying none.  No, they don't. The top marginal rate for income taxes is 38%. Meanwhile, in the Republic of Ireland, rates vary from 12.5 - 25% depending on the exact source of the income. So, no, 'our' corporations do not pay the lowest taxes in the world. As far as them paying 'none', that stems from one of two things: one, corporations that pay out all their money in salaries and therefore have no retained earnings (hence, all their money is taxed at the individual level, and workers get socked at a full 35%), and two, corporations that create a price-transfer agreement with a foreign corporation so that income is shifted to a low-tax region where they end up paying nothing to Uncle Sam. That money will still be taxed if they ever try to bring it home and distribute it ... but as long as it stays overseas then no one can touch it because, technically, it hasn't been earned as income yet. That's how companies avoid greedy bastards trying to take their money -- because contrary to your opinion, you're not actually entitled to any of their money, or anyone else's money either. It's not 'your' money, or 'our' money, its 'their' money -- and they have an effective method to make sure it stays that way.  &gt; Btw, if wanting decent opportunity to take care of me and mine is greed, then yes, I'm greedy.   You can already do that -- it's called getting a fucking job and living within your means. You don't **DESERVE** anything in life -- you have to earn it. No one is obligated to just **GIVE** you things just because you want them. Ultimately, this whole 'lets sock it to the rich' attitude doesn't actually take any money out of their pockets ... the only people harmed are workers who can't take advantage of the methods they use to shift income overseas. In short: you're not simply wrong, you're criminally ignorant.
It is unlikely that UK tax will be due on the money -- see here: Foreign students usually don’t pay UK tax on foreign income or gains, as long as they’re used for course fees or living costs But if the UK doesn't tax you on the money then double-taxation agreements probably won't apply, and so any Italian tax due will be payable.
"Depositing above $10,000 in cash into a bank automatically triggers warnings in the banks computer system, and reports are submitted to appropriate authorities. Every bank has to do its, it's the law. If you ""structure"" your deposits where you put in several cash deposits below $10,000 that's a crime and bank computers are very sensitive to picking up on that. They're so sensitive to structuring that innocent people get flagged by it all the time. So I recommend only depositing $6k or less of that money into banks. What do you want to do with the money?  If you want to use it to buy stuff in person at stores then I recommend just using it at the counter instead of credit cards. If you want to buy things online with it then I recommend bitcoin. It's anonymous, the IRS won't know it's yours, and it's easy to buy what you need with bitcoin. You can easily exchange bitcoin for cash among your neighbors using apps like PaxFul, LocalBitcoins, and BitQuick. They'll give you bitcoin which you'd load onto an app called a ""wallet"", for example Mycelium or Blockchain.info. You can buy just about anything online with bitcoin these days: from computers at newegg, to hotels at expedia, to airplane tickets at cheapair.com, to anything on amazon at 20% off using purse.io, or you can invest it by offer people around the world loans at BTCJam.com and they pay you back with interest. You can hold on to bitcoin as it grows in value, or you can donate it to any of the thousands of charities around the world who accept it. You can even use it to support presidential campaigns (at this time, only Rand Paul's campaign and Joe Biden's SuperPAC accept bitcoin)."
Oh I see - then yes I agree with you. Even if it was a foreign company in that situation, they should pay taxes. But in regards to the concept of repatriated profits,  that has to do with profits generated outside of the borders...
Short answer: it's complicated. The UK govt pages on foreign income are probably your best starting point: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/LeavingOrComingIntoTheUK/DG_10027480 As you can see, it depends on your precise residence status here.  (There is a tax treaty between the UK and the US so you wouldn't be double taxed on the income either way. But there might still be reporting obligations).
The money you receive from son would be treated as gift. As per gift tax you can get unlimited money from son and there is no tax implication. You are free to use money as you like. There is no restriction. Any profit you make is taxable as income to you.
This question is indeed rather complicated. Let's simplify it a little bit. Paying down your mortgage makes sense if your expected return in the rest of your portfolio is less than the cost of the mortgage. In many cases, people may also decide to pay down their mortgage because they are risk-averse and do not like carrying debt. There's no tax benefit to doing so, though; Canada doesn't generally allow you to write off mortgage interest, unlike the U.S. As to keeping money in the corporation or not, I'm not going to address that. I don't have a firm enough understanding of corporate taxation. Canadian Couch Potato advises treating all of your investment assets as one large portfolio. That is what you are trying to do here. However, let's consider a different approach. If you do not have enough money to max out your RRSP or TFSA, you may choose to keep your TFSA for an emergency fund, where the money is kept highly liquid. Keep your cash in an interest-bearing TFSA, or perhaps invest it in the money market, inside your TFSA. Then, use your RRSP for the rest of your investment money, split according to your investment goals. This is not the most tax-efficient approach, but it is nice and simple. But you are looking for the most tax-efficient approach. So, let's assume you have enough to more than max out your TFSA and RRSP contributions, and all of your investments are going toward your retirement, which is at least a decade away. Because you are not taxed on your investment income from RRSPs (until you withdraw the money) or TFSA, it makes sense to hold the least tax-efficient investments there. Tax-advantaged investments such as Canadian equities should be held in your investment accounts outside of TFSA and RRSPs. Again, the Canadian Couch Potato has a great article on where to put your investment assets. That article covers interest, dividends, foreign dividends, and capital gains, as well as RRSPs, RESPs, and TFSAs.
Yes, you'll be able to get the money by submitting legitimate receipts for care for your child, and at tax time you'll pay the tax on the extra $3600.
Your spouse is eligible for an HSA even if you have one as long as she is covered by a qualified high-deductible plan. In the case that you both had HSAs you would be limited in how much you contribute each year, but both can have accounts. In 2015, you could each contribute $3350 to your separate HSA plans. If you have a combined plan, and even if you switched mid year, you could contribute $6650 during that year total to the two HSAs. That can be divided any way you want as long as the total does not exceed that maximum for the year. You can contribute an extra $1000 if you are over 55 years old.  (I should probably also mention that you can still make contributions for the 2015 year until April 15, 2016, because it's relevant to most who would read this. Also you can only contribute a percentage of that limit matching the percentage of months that you are covered, but if you are covered for the last month of the year, you can contribute the full amount as long as you are covered for the ENTIRE following year.)
Sounds about right. From [Give Well](http://www.givewell.org/how-we-work/our-criteria/cost-effectiveness):  &gt; As of November 2016, the median estimate of our top charities' cost-effectiveness ranged from ~$900 to ~$7,000 per equivalent life saved (a metric we use to compare interventions with different outcomes, such as income improvements and averting a death) .
When you withdraw from your RRSP, you lose that contribution room and you will never get it back. Let's say you have room to contribute a total of $50,000 to RRSPs. If you withdraw $5000 from one institution and deposit it in another, you will now have a total contribution room of $45,000. This will only matter to you if you hope to max out your RRSP contributions sometime in your life, of course, but almost everyone should be aiming for this. Otherwise, you are correct. Your extra income will be mitigated by your immediate recontribution to your RRSP. Note that there are two circumstances where withdrawing from your RRSP does not reduce your contribution limit. The home-buyers plan lets you withdraw up to $25,000 to buy a home. You have to repay this over no more than 15 years. The second is the Lifelong Learning Plan, which lets you withdraw up to $20,000 (up to $10,000 annually), to be repaid over a 10-year period. Any other withdrawals (or failure to repay under the HBP or LLP) will lower your RRSP contribution room. In summary, it's almost certainly worth paying the $125 fee unless you are certain you will not be maxing out your RRSP contributions in your lifetime.
Your $400/month contributions are still tax deductible in the current tax year. However, each subsequent tax year, you will be required to repay at least 1/15 of the total amount you withdrew. In your example, let's say you used $25,000 for the home buyer's plan in the 2015 tax year. Throughout 2015, you contribute $400/month toward your RRSP. For the 2015 tax year, you are able to claim $4800 in RRSP contributions. For the 2016 tax year, you continue to contribute $400/month toward your RRSP. However, you are only able to claim $3133.33 in RRSP contributions, and must put at least $1666.67 toward repayment of your HBP. This will continue until you have entirely repaid the HBP. You are free to repay it early. This CRA page has the details.
yes and no its definitely not charitable as they are making money of off you but depending on the outside conditions if you had to pay a mortgage on that condo with only 35k in payments to start off it would more than likely exceed 500 dollars a month however there would always be a point were the mortgage would end and it dosent sound like thats going to be the case with you paying your parents so it depends on how long your going to have that condo and how much mortgage would have been.
"If you aren't already contributing the maximum allowable amount, by all means do so. If you are already contributing the maximum, it doesn't matter that much when you make those contributions. Making fixed monthly contributions is done mostly for budgeting reasons. Most of us can't predict fund performance well enough to optimize our contributions (by which I mean, contributing more early if you think the market is going up, but waiting if you think it will go down, following the ""buy low"" strategy). As for employer matching, check with your company to see how they compute matches. They may match contributions for the year, even if those matching funds are only paid up to a maximum per paycheck. (For example, if you contribute 200% of the match for the first 6 months, then contribute nothing for the remaining 6 months, you may still receive the same matching funds per pay period as if you were contributing 100% throughout the year.)"
You don't. Say you deposited $5000. Then you converted $4950 to Roth. You declare $4950 as the amount converted and you're done.
Part III of form 8889 is applicable only if we have taken advantage of last month rule -had high deductible health plan (hdhp) on Dec 1 of the tax year. The advantage we get because of the rule is -we can contribute maximum amount to HSA for the tax year even though we had hdhp for just few months and not the entire tax year.  Now there is one limitation to that advantage - we have to maintain 12 months of hdhp in the next year (after tax year). If we cannot maintain full 12 months of hdhp along with tax year's Dec 1 to Dec 31 hdhp then we fail glorious testing period. Such a failure would require us to pay taxes and penalty that we report on part III of 8889 form. These taxes and penalties are applied on last year's (tax year) contribution except dec month.  Reference: http://www.hsaedge.com/2014/03/25/hsa-last-month-rule-and-testing-period-explained/
Short answer is to put the max 15% contribution into your ESPP. Long answer is that since you want to be saving as much as you can anyway, this is a great way to force you to do it, and pick up at least a 15% return every six months (or however often your plan makes a purchase). I say at least because sometimes an ESPP will give you the lower of the beginning or end period stock price, and then a 15% discount off of that (but check the details of your plan). If you feel like your company's stock is a good long term investment, then hold onto the shares when purchased. Otherwise sell as soon as you get them, and bank that 15% return.
You need to keep in mind that there's an exemption amount of more than $5M (five million) dollars for estate tax. Unless you used all of it for gifts during your life time, it will more than cover all of your $70K estate, so there's no need in any additional planning. As to Roth vs Traditional IRA - if you want to leave something to your siblings, leave them the Roth. Why would you give the taxable income to your siblings when you can give them the nontaxable one? Charities are tax exempt anyway.
Please note that if you are self employed, then the profit sharing limit for both the SEP and Solo 401(k) is 20% of compensation, not 25%. There is no need for a SEP-IRA in this case.  In addition to the 401(k) at work, you have a solo-401(k) for your consulting business.  You can contribute $18,000 on the employee side across the two 401(k) plans however you wish.  You can also contribute profit sharing up to 20% of compensation in your solo 401(k) plan.  However, the profit sharing limit aggregates across all plans for your consulting business.  If you max that out in your solo 401(k), then you cannot contribute to the SEP IRA. In other words, the solo 401(k) dominates the SEP IRA in terms of contributions and shares a limit on the profit-sharing contribution.  If you have a solo 401(k), there is never a reason to have a SEP for the same company. Example reference: Can I Contribute to a solo 401(k) and SEP for the same company?
If you file your taxes jointly, she can pay for you. The money can be spent on any taxable dependent can for qualified expenses.  The rules for how much money can be contributed to the account are based off of the number enrolled. Since your spouse has your children enrolled, she can contribute the higher family limit (current $6250 in 2012) but that has no bearing on how she spends the money so long as the expense is a qualified one. She could not pay for a cousin's expenses if that cousin is not listed on her taxes. Because your wife has the HSA, you are not allowed to contribute to an FSA, so be careful with whatever insure you being provided by the university.
Yes, quite easily, in fact.  You left a lot of numbers out, so lets start with some assumptions. If you are at the median of middle income families in the US that might mean $70,000/year. 15% of that is an investment of $875 per month. If you invest that amount monthly and assume a 6% return, then you will have a million dollars at approximately 57 years old. 6% is a very conservative number, and as Ben Miller points out, the S&P 500 has historically returned closer to 11%. If you assumed an aggressive 9% return, and continued with that $875/month for 40 years until you turn 65, that becomes $4 million. Start with a much more conservative $9/hr for $18,720 per year (40 hours * 52 weeks, no overtime). If that person saved 14% of his/her income or about $219 per month from 25 to 65 years old with the same 9%, they would still achieve $1 million for retirement. Is it much harder for a poor person? Certainly, but hopefully these numbers illustrate that it is better to save and invest even a small amount if that's all that can be done. High income earners have the most to gain if they save and the most to lose if they don't. Let's just assume an even $100,000/year salary and modest 401(k) match of 3%. Even married filing jointly a good portion of that salary is going to be taxed at the 25% rate. If single you'll be hitting the 28% income tax rate.  If you can max out the $18,000 (2017) contribution limit and get an additional $3,000 from an employer match (for a total monthly contribution of $1750) 40 years of contributions would become $8.2 million with the 9% rate of return.  If you withdrew that money at 4% per year you would have a residual income of $300k throughout your retirement.
&gt;For each challenge, you'll earn up to $2, for a total maximum earning of $20.00.  Why? That amount is so absurdly tiny that anybody who can competently participate will be more dissuaded by the offer than if you hadn't offered any incentive, which you *should* have done.
There is one way to make money quickly. If you are married and both are over 50 and you can put money into a deductible IRA for 2014. The $5,500 contribution  and $1,000 catch-up per person would allow the family to make a contribution of $13,000. If they are in the 25% tax bracket the $3,250 drop in their taxes would allow them to get a $325 bonus from their tax software.  Of course they would have already had to be getting a refund before the IRA contribution, or the new refund and bonus would be smaller. They would have had to meet all the program rules. And they must have a combination of 401Ks and AGI to allow deductible contributions.  This would drastically shorten the initial loan period.
Transit FSAs have $255 limits for each of {parking, public transit} per month, considered on a monthly basis separately; and that limit applies both to funding and to claims. You may fund your transit FSA with up to $255 per month for each purpose.  You may withdraw up to $255 per month for each purpose.  The amounts each month don't have to match, but they do need to each be under the maximum.   Any amount you spend over $255 for either parking or public transit would need to be funded with post-tax money.  Most transit FSAs have a mechanism for adding a credit card to the account to allow this to be seamless and on-demand (as opposed to be declared in advance). You can change your deduction each month, up to the limit your benefits provider permits (for me for example, I can choose up to the 10th of the prior month what to do). This differs from health care FSAs, which are annual in nature, and must be entirely defined during open enrollment - but as they have annual limits, would allow you to use the full amount even when employed for only half the year.
From what I understand (I never had an RESP but would consider one for a future child), with the right type of withdrawal, you can use the RESP money for anything education related. Basically, know that the RESP is considered to have three compartments within it: (1) your contributions, (2) contributions from the government through the Canada Education Savings Grant (CESG), and (3) the return on the investment, or accumulated earnings. The government contributes an extra 20% on top of your contributions annually by way of the CESG, up to a $500 max. Tuition As you noted, official tuition fees, reported on a fee slip, is where one large chunk of the RESP will go. This will be pulled out of your original contributions and is known as a Post-Secondary Education (PSE) Withdrawal. Different RESP administrators (bank, discount brokerage, etc) determine what sort of proof of enrolment would be required, but it ought to be similar between them and different educational institutions. This withdrawal is not taxable by either you or the student, since the contributions were made with after-tax dollars. Educational Assistance Payments (EAPs) EAPs are for other expenses that the student would incur by being at university. In the first 13 weeks of studies, you can request up to $5000 in EAP withdrawals (full-time studies, $2500 for par-time), after which there is no limit. Each EAP payment is made up of the CESG and accumulated earnings portions of the RESP, whose proportions are determined based on the EAP amount. This is considered taxable income for the student, or beneficiary, in the year the EAP withdrawal is made. It gets a bit fuzzy here, from my understanding. The student would ostensibly be able to purchase anything that they could rationalize as education-related, and I'm not sure what sort of proof different banks would need. Maybe just the confirmation of enrolment is enough. This is the part of my post that should directly answer your question which, using this terminology, boils down to what sorts of expenses can I use the EAP withdrawals for? To this, from what I've read out there, I would say that you could probably purchase anything.