vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The missing money is not money that was invested in MF Global Holdings Ltd. for an ownership share of that company, but money in accounts for which that company was responsible.  And yes, if you take money from customer accounts and use it as if it's your own, then as I understand it you are guilty of a crime.
"The UTMA is actually very liberal in how custodians can spend the money: ""A custodian may deliver or pay to the minor or expend for the minor's benefit so much of the custodial property as the custodian considers advisable for the use and benefit of the minor . . . .""  A custodian might reasonably consider expending the UTMA money on groceries the benefit the child, for instance."
You're not going to be an assistant to his financial matters, more like an Executive Assistant (look up this position). You'll be responsible for his scheduling, booking flights, getting lunch, doing general administrative stuff, etc...   You just need to be social, organized, meticulous, and very detail oriented.
"A few years ago our company switched from Fidelity to a different 401k provider. During the blackout transition, nearly every employee lost a considerable amount of money. The ""Trustee"" advised us that during the blackout he had a right to invest the funds and that the investments lost money."
How do I withdraw a large sum from my bank and give it to a money management firm? Either write a check to the Money Management firm or wire transfer the funds to the account mentioned.
"All the ""money"" you might receive from a pyramid scheme is ""ill-gotten gains"". Even if you didn't know it was a pyramid scheme. If through deliberate planning or dumb luck, you manage to get more money out of a pyramid scheme than you put in, the government can sue you for any ""profit"" you made.  For example, in the Bernie Madoff scandal, more than 1,000 people, funds and institutions were sued for the excess money they made above their initial investment. Suffice to say, if you make enough ""profit"" from a pyramid scheme to materially change your life, it's only going to last until the scheme collapses and the government comes after you for the excess."
The charts suggest otherwise. Although most of the large gains were wiped out in 2008 and 2011, that doesn't include the substantial dividends you are likely to get with financials. They still returned a positive percentage and some outperformed benchmark indices over time.   But hey, don't let your bias get in the way.
Anyone who has that kind of money to blow probably has a CPA with a power of attorney who could provide such a service. I don't have that kind of money but I do have a CPA with a POA who would gladly charge me and arm and a leg to deliver money to me.
Mint is only an organizer of information that is actually aggregated by different services. Currently data aggregation for mint is being done by Yodlee and also by Intuit's own aggregation service.
This is one of the biggest, most complex financial, political, and legal dramas of our time. Gretchen Morgenson has done an incredible job covering this story over the years, and I highly recommend seeking out her prior coverage.    Edit: for author's name
I'm not begrudging anyone for abiding by the law and minimizing their tax burden.  To do otherwise would amount to writing a check to the government, which is an asinine thing to do if you're concerned with actually changing the system.  You can speculate on his motivations, but he's gone out of his way to make his thoughts on the subject known, I have no reason to doubt the earnestness of his arguments.  Regardless, it's an impossible task to locate such an argument in a specific physical brain, all we need to do is show that such a thought process is theoretically sound in order to throw that premise into serious question.  &gt; Pray tell, what angel do you trust to make the decision of whether and to what extent systemic risk is introduced?  I'm skeptical that such an angel (or some distributed process accomplishing the same goal) exists.  But if the actuaries can't figure out a way to do it, then wouldn't that be cause to reevaluate the blind faith many people place in markets?
NAPFA claims to have members in Canada. They are an organization of fee-only financial planners--they work for hourly fees, not commissions, so they have no conflicts of interest when giving advice.
"Dawn Bennett For over thirty years, Dawn J. Bennett has provided expert financial guidance and insight to her numerous clients as a Wharton School of Business Certified Management Investment Analyst. Dawn’s financial expertise and passion for politics has culminated in the ""Financial Myth Busting with Dawn Bennett"" radio program, a nationally-syndicated weekly show on which Dawn covers a range of current political and financial issues."
My two-cents, read your plan document or Summary Plan Description. The availability of in-service withdrawals will vary by document. Moreover, many plans, especially those compliant with 404(c) of ERISA will allow for individual brokerage accounts. This is common for smaller plans. If so, you can request to direct your own investments in your own account. You will likely have to pay any associated fees. Resources: work as actuary at a TPA firm
Indeed, I've read that financial shenanigans account for over 40% of all wealth generated now, with the vast majority going to the already wealthy.  So, basically, financial gaming of the system, which creates nothing except for massive wealth inequity, is on its way to becoming the top generator of wealth in out country.
"It may not apply for your situation, but if you were running a mutual fund, you could use the term ""front-end load""."
"I would recommend ""How to Read a Financial Report : For Managers, Entrepreneurs, Lenders, Lawyers, and Investors"" by John A. Tracy for the following reasons: I also think the book would bridge the gap nicely between a broad understanding of finance and a more serious technical know-how."
As per OP's request Slush fund, maybe?
Ponzi schemes (or pyramid schemes) are based on paying earlier investors from the money invested by the later ones. For Ponzi scheme, the idea is generally to distribute some relateviely high consistent dividend/payout based on the inflow of money from new investors. As long as new investors are coming, the scheme can be sustained for quite some time (see the Madoff's example that spanned over decades). In the mean time the scheme operator can take (some of) the investment money to himself (legally as fees and salary, illegally as embezzling). The scheme operator doesn't actually have to put in any money other than some organizational expenses. However, at some point the new investors' money won't be enough to pay all the existing investors (inevitably, sooner or later, since the dividend payout grows with each new investor and there are no infinite exponential amount of new investors to cover for it). That's when the $#!+ hits the fan and sons of the schemers start ending up hanging from the ceiling. Pyramid scheme is built on similar idea, but the dividend payout varies based on the level of the investor (i.e.: the investor gets paid based on how many new ones he brought in, and how many new ones rooted from them). Thus the incentive to bring new investors is directly shifted to the investors themselves. The schemers here are at the top and get the most payouts from all the rest of the participants. They themselves usually put no or very little investment. However, the end result is the same: couldn't possibly be enough investors to sustain this model forever, and it will inevitably fail at some point. When such a scheme fails - the paying fund ends up being bankrupt, either due to cashflow problems (not enough money in to pay money out) or because all the money dries out (usually - both). How to detect - if the reports are not falsified (which in most cases they are) you'll see clearly that there's no actual investment income in the cash-flow. But, the reports are usually falsified to conceal this exact fact. So, that's where the independent auditors and regulatory oversight come in handy. Generally, if an investment fund doesn't have a reputable independent auditor - stay away.
Good luck with it then. A challenge it is though.  Btw, my friends are British so will have passed through the British Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (as it is now called). The gambler friend who ended up doing quite well ended up not only working in the field but also teaching it part-time.
"Yes you can add it there. You can also add it to the ""gross receipt line"". Note that you do not have to list where it came from, just the total."
No.  Unless you actually laid out cash for it, you can't write it off.
Yes, you can.  That the books were purchased from abroad is irrelevant: you incurred an expense in the course of earning your income. If the books are expensive (>$300 per set iirc) you will need to deprecate them over a reasonable life time rather than claiming the entire amount up front. It doesn't matter whether what you got was a VAT Invoice; as long as you have some reasonable documentation of the expense you're ok.
Miscellaneous income -- same category used for hobbies.
"Yes, you may deduct the cost of building the ""noise cancellation system"" :) sorry couldn't resist. But seriously, yes you can deduct it ONCE (unless you have more cost maintaining it) and its on line 19 (Repairs and maintenance) of IRS Form 8829."
If I understand you right, people are giving the LLC money for an ownership share.  That is NOT income - it would go under equity on the balance sheet.  It is analogous to getting a loan from the bank.  It is not income - you get cash (an asset) and have an increase to debt (a liability)
What's the problem with having them write it off? Stop fishing for something negative and accept the fact that they're doing a good thing. They're still a business, not a soup kitchen. Making money isn't evil unless your taking advantage of someone, which is the opposite of what they're doing.
I would suggest to buy your own printer, and calculate the cost for a page including the wear to the printer. Then either deduce these printing expenses, or ask the charity to reimburse you. This is not much different than when you would go to a copyshop, those easily charge 10-30c per page, with your own printer you can probably get it around 5-10c per page, including paper, toner, drum, and amortization. The advantage is that when you do use the printer for other purposes, you wont get into any problems with who owns the printer or deductions.
Very simple. If it wasn't rented, it's deductible as a schedule A home mortgage interest. If it was rented, you go into Schedule E land, still a deduction along with any/every expense incurred.
IRS has it spelled out Business or Hobby?
Generally loan goes against an asset, in your case though it appear that you don't have any fixed assets related to this loan. So it seems like you got a cash loan (current asset/checking account?) which you spent (expenses). Since you're doing it retroactively, you'll probably just put totals in the expenses without detailing them.
The basis of the home is the cost of land and material. That's it.  Your time isn't added to basis. No different than if you spend 1000 hours in a soup kitchen. You deduct miles for your car and expenses you can document but you can't deduct your time.  Over 2 years, you could have a gain up to $500K per married couple and pay no tax.
Unfortunately this is something that should have been determined prior to the book tour. Your tax advisor or accountant could have assisted you in making sure you collected the documentation you needed.  You are going to have to sit down with your advisor with the documentation you have and determine what you can prove.
You cannot deduct anything. Since you're actually moving, your tax home will move with you. You can only deduct the moving expenses (actual moving - packing, shipping, and hotels while you drive yourself there).
Assuming you have a good head on your shoulders, start looking into organizations with missions that align with what you believe in. After you've found a couple that are within driving distance, reach out and volunteer to serve on a Board or two.   There are tons of non-profit, and for-profit, entities that cannot afford to pay a salary, or generally even a stipend, to the Board members. These organizations need good people to work on the Board for free and who aren't seeking a Board position to merely enhance their resume.
Yes, at that stage income is income regardless of source. Assuming you're talking about overall profit, not just the individual wins when gambling.
It's the same result either way.  Say the bills are $600, and you are reimbursed $400. You'd be able to write off $400 as part of the utilities that are common expenses, but then claim the $400 as income.  I'd stick with that, and have contemporaneous records supporting all cash flow. You also can take 2/3 of any other maintenance costs that most homeowners can't. Like snow removal, lawn care, etc.
Kind of pointless when 1/2 goes to military 1/4 to banks, the rest for poorly organised social services. Better off setting up a separate foundation / charity or it will just get recycled back into wealth disparity activities. No point raising tax revenues when its spent on war inc and wallstreet.
Taxes are the least of your concerns. Your friends need licenses. Although this COULD be avoided entirely with certain craftily worded disclaimers and exemptions and the WAY that money is given to them.
You don't need to make even close to that much to start doing this. All you need is a job where you hire your company out to another company to do work. Any kind of consulting work is usually done in a similar fashion. You can't expect people not to take advantage of tax breaks. That's like asking parents to stop getting subsidies for child care because it's not fair to bachelors. To say that people who do this don't feel anything is quite insulting.
Oh so you were serious. Maybe you should check out the 200b surplus Clinton left us, and the 1.4 trillion bush left us after his tax cuts. Maybe once you come up with a logical answer on if apple didn't didn't do the grand things you claim they will after they're making 20b extra a year from 5 years ago, why they would do it if they made 68b after tax cuts and not 65b like they do now?  What's a company who makes 15b now going to do when they make 17b after tax cuts that they couldn't do with 15b?   The answer is absolutely nothing. They will hoard more.
uhh... because capital is just being hoarded and not being invested..?? Companies just hoard cash and just make big acquisitions now instead of expanding businesses and jobs. Even with higher taxation they would have billions of dollars of capital to invest in new businesses.
oh Yay!!!  Tax cuts for the rich, just in time to maximize their profits from the Feds garage sale of goodies . . .  Ahh .  . . .its a good thing all the Goyim are paying attention to the foot ball thing or they just might wake and start to ask stupid questions and we will have to explain to them why low taxes for the rich is good for the poor.
&gt; if the government had access to that capital that this guy is clearly withholding by not paying his fair share, *they would engage in more productive ventures*.  I don't know if that's necessarily true.  Government doesn't always spend money better than private entities, and private entities don't always spend money better than government.  I'd much rather see this research going on than more money going to beef up our military, but I also think this guy should pay his fair share of taxes like everyone else.
It's not fucking rocket science. You cut taxes at the high income brackets, and it helps people in higher income bracket. Is this what counts for journalism these days?  I wish I could get my time back for reading this article.
I think the IRS doc you want is http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2010_publink100010601 I believe the answers are:
&gt;Because something is legal doesn't make it the ethical choice.  You fail to demonstrate what is unethical about minimizing tax burdens.   &gt;corporations making huge profits using the infrastructure of the region  Did the corporations have an option to refuse using that infrastructure, and instead provide their own or work with others to develop a competing infrastructure?   &gt;Keep in mind that these favorable tax laws were lobbied by corporations with the intent to avoid taxes in mind.  You have failed to support any argument that there is anything wrong with minimizing tax burden.  &gt;If I'm walking behind someone and they happen to drop a $100 bill without noticing, I can certainly pick it up and put it in my pocket legally, but its hardly the moral thing to do.  A more relevant example is if I order a pizza, have it sent to your house, then show up later with a bill for the pizza and my costs to send it to you, demanding you pay it. You never asked for the pizza, maybe you didn't want the pizza, maybe you didn't eat the pizza, maybe you don't like pizza, or don't like that kind of pizza. That I choose to send you a pizza does not obligate you to pay for that pizza.
First, the recipient is not responsible for any gift tax, the giver pays the tax. The gift is not taxable income to the recipient and so the recipient does not pay any income tax on the gift either. More than that, and they tap into their lifetime exclusion, currently (2015) $5.43M. All that's needed is a simple form. More convoluted, would be to lend you the full amount and then forgive $14,000 per year. Unnescesary paperwork, in my opinion.
&gt;  Shitty? No doubt  I doubt it - in fact, I think it's quite reasonable.  Exceptions and loopholes aren't in the tax code *by accident*, they were put there deliberately so certain people wouldn't have to pay their taxes.  'Dodging' taxes legally is following the rules.  Period.    Have you ever given part of your paycheck back to your employer because you feel like you didn't work hard enough to earn it, or that you'd rather contribute to the company succeeding?  **Fuck no**.  We're buying israel weapons to bomb hospitals and daycares, flooding the military with weapons and tanks they don't need, *then* giving those to our cops so they can run us over and shoot us with them.  Then there's the PA Turnpike Commission here (don't even get me started).  We're paying the NSA to listen to and watch everything we do, and pumping all that info back to israel and others.  And I'm supposed to somehow *voluntarily* pay more for these things?  Pfff.  The only thing *shitty* here is the tax code to begin with - the winners are the slimy politicians, the ultra rich and conglomerate corps; the losers are small businesses and the middle class - both of whom don't have the cash base to pay for legal services to reap such tax benefits.  Ya know, the same people all the politicians circlejerk about protecting and helping to thrive - hanging them out to dry.  Taxes too high is a minor problem - not enough people paying them is a bigger one, but wasting them is worse than either of the two combined.
Not harsh enough in my book. I don't feel like going on a long diatribe but the money is spent poorly and few do anything of value. Society would be better off if the money was spent on infrastructure. But it's taboo to criticise because people mean well.
Taxes do not translate into income for the poor maybe under certain circumstances, but that's not true at all in general. Transfer payments, healthcare, education... those are areas where increased tax dollars correlate with increased income for the poor.   It certainly wouldn't be effective if those tax dollars went to the military, but it would undeniably increase income if it were distributed as transfer payments.
You act like these corporations don't have thousands lawyers and tax experts that are attorneys working for them finding every loophole and exploiting them and writing the laws that congress passes. Who do you think does the dirty work and finds the legal ways for these companies to operate with only the goal of profits in mind?
"The absolute worst kind of people, they preach community and help thy neighbor, unless you're not orthodox then you might as well be a shit stain on their driveway.   These people better pay back every penny with interest, not like they're paying normal taxes on the majority of that income. Ya know ""religious purposes"" and such."
Cut the tax rate, eliminate the loopholes.  If they are able to make money then they should be more than able to do so, but if they are not, they should have to take the loss as they are the ones taking the risk.  EDIT: Of course I'm downvoted, I forgot Reddit is basically communist.
I brought this up to my CPA. She said don't do it. People used to do it, but now they're cracking down. Is it unfair? Yes. But it's the government so don't mess with them.
In a nutshell, there are significant entrance hurdles, legally and especially financially. The fixed cost and effort to get it set up is high (although later, the proportional cost and efforts are negligible). Therefore, this is only of interest for taxable amounts of seven digits or more - which most people don’t reach.
IRS Pub 561 says you have to use fair market value.  You cannot simply use a depreciated value. You should attempt to determine what people normally pay for comparable items, and be prepared to defend your determination with evidence in the event of an audit.
"Books would be considered Personal-Use Property according to Canada's income tax laws. The most detailed IT I was able to find is IT-332R, which says: GAINS AND LOSSES 3. A gain on the disposition of personal-use property is normally a capital gain within the meaning of paragraph 39(1)(a). Where the property is a principal residence, the gain > is computed under paragraph 40(2)(b) or (c). 4. Under subparagraph 40(2)(g)(iii), a loss on a disposition of personal-use property, other than listed personal property, is deemed to be nil. [...] This part of the bulletin indicates that a gain might be considered a capital gain - not income. However, you don't get to book a loss as a capital loss. This is the first hint that your book sale - which is actually an exempt capital loss - shouldn't go on your tax return unless it's one of the ""listed"" items: LISTED PERSONAL PROPERTY 7. Listed personal property is defined in paragraph 54(e) to mean personal-use property that is all or any portion of, or any interest in or right to, any (a) print, etching, drawing, painting, sculpture, or other similar work of art, (b) jewellery, (c) rare folio, rare manuscript, or rare book, (d) stamp, or (e) coin. So unless you're selling rare books, the disposition (sale) of them is essentially exempt as income, regardless of whether you sold it at a profit or at a loss. If it is rare, then you might be able to consider it a capital loss, which doesn't help you much unless you had other capital gains, but you can carry over capital losses to future years. There's also a newer IT related to hobbies and ""collecting"" items, IT-334R2. This one says: 11. In order for any activity or pursuit to be regarded as a source of income, there must be a reasonable expectation of profit.
Media is worthless. I used to sell old books and movies on Amazon.com, but the hassle is significant and the returns low. I have had better luck donating old media to charity, and deducting the value that you typically get on Amazon ($0.01 + 2.99 shipping - media mail cost)
As long as you don't mind doing the extra tax paperwork, you don't need to pay any taxes, since the gift tax doesn't kick in until you've given someone several million dollars over a lifetime.