Where I am I liable for taxes?
You will have to pay your taxes in the UK not USA. For tax purposes it is the company's tax residency not where the server is located. You are just hiring a server in USA. Take for example a CDN being used for your same service then would you pay taxes in 300 different countries if you use Akamai? Does not work that way.
If you're under age 55 and in good health generally you cannot withdraw your funds from super and your super fund cannot provide you with any financial assistance eg lend you money. However, for a very small percentage of people with unrestricted non preserved superannuation components ( check your statement most people's superannuation is 'preserved'which means they cannot access it until they meet a 'condition of release')they may withdraw their super benefits upto the unrestricted non preserved amount. For healthy (& able) persons  aged 55 and over they may access their super under the following conditions: I can understand your frustration of having your money compulsory tied up in superannuation especially given the poor investment returns of the past 5 years. However, superannuation may be more flexible than you realize, I am an adviser at Grant Thornton and I am constantly telling clients that superannuation is not an invest but it the most tax effective long term savings vehicle available to Australians for their investment savings eg max 15% tax on income and capital gains if held for a year are taxed at 10%.  If you're not happy with your investment returns you may like to seek some advice or,set up your own super fund - a self managed super fund where you can invest a wide variety of assets; shares, managed funds,cash, term deposits, property( your super fund can even borrow to help acquire the property) I hope this helps I would not expect any problems. Your interest will have tax deducted at 20% which I don't think you would be entitled to reclaim because you don't get a personal allowance if you aren't resident in the UK, and unless you have a huge amount of UK earnings you would not be legally liable to any higher rates of tax so there would be no issues there. If you were liable to more tax you would be obliged to inform the Inland Revenue. I was hesitant to answer this question since I don't own MLP even though I'm aware of how they work.  But hear crickets on this question, so here goes.  I'll try to keep this as non technical as possible. MLPs are partnerships where a shareholder is a partner and liable for the partnership's taxes.  MLPs don't pay corporate tax since the tax burden flows to you, the shareholder. So does that mean like a partnership the partners are liable for the company's actions?  Technically, yes. Has it happened before? No. Of course there are limitations to the liability, but are not definitely shielded in a way normal shareholders are.   MLPs issue a K-1 at the beginning of the year (feb/mar).  The tax calculations are relatively complex and I'm not going to go over that in this post. Generally MLPs are a bad choice for tax-deferred accounts like IRAs since there are tax implications beyond certain limits of distribution (yes even out of an IRA you'll have to pay taxes if above the limit). Not all types of businesses can become MLPs (hey no corporate tax, let's form an MLP!) Only companies engaged in businesses related to real estate, commodities or natural resources can become MLPs.  There are a number of MLPs out there.  The largest is Kinder  Morgan Energy Partners. Hope this helps! I heard that a C-Corp being a one person shop (no other employees but the owner) can pay for the full amount 100% of personal rent if the residence is being used as a home office. Sure. Especially if you don't mind being audited. Technically, it doesn't matter how the money gets where it goes as long as the income tax filings accurately describe the tax situation. But the IRS hates it when you make personal expenses from a business account, even if you've paid the required personal income tax (because their computers simply aren't smart enough to keep up with that level of chaos). Also, on a non-tax level, commingling of business and personal funds can reduce the effectiveness of your company's liability protection and you could more easily become personally liable if the company goes bankrupt. From what I understand the 30% would be the expense, and the 70% profit distribution. I recommend you just pay yourself and pay the rent from your personal account and claim the allowed deductions properly like everyone else. Why & when it would make sense to do this? Are there any tax benefits? Never, because, no. You would still have to pay personal income tax on your 70% share of the rent (the 30% you may be able to get deductions for but the rules are quite complicated and you should never just estimate). The only way to get money out of a corporation without paying personal income tax is by having a qualified dividend. That's quite complicated - your accounting has to be clear that the money being issued as a qualified dividend came from an economic profit, not from a paper profit resulting from the fact that you worked hard without paying yourself market value. You will pay taxes in both states!!! Where you bought the ticket as soon as you claim it.  and your residence state at the end of the year! Its called state Income Tax. This is bullshit. The US government requires taxes to be paid in USD. There's your intrinsic value. If you want to be compliant with the federal law, your business and you as an individual are required to convert assets or labor into USD to pay them. "The decision whether this test is or is not met seems to be highly dependent on the specific situation of the employer and the employee.  I think that you won't find a lot of general references meeting your needs. There is such a thing as a ""private ruling letter,"" where individuals provide specific information about their situation and request the IRS to rule in advance on how the situation falls with respect to the tax law.  I don't know a lot about that process or what you need to do to qualify to get a private ruling.  I do know that anonymized versions of at least some of the rulings are published.  You might look for such rulings that are close to your situation. I did a quick search and found two that are somewhat related: As regards your situation, my (non-expert) understanding is that you will not pass in this case unless either (a) the employer specifies that you must live on the West Coast or you'll be fired, (b) the employer would refuse to provide space for you if you moved to Boston (or another company location), or (c) you can show that you could not possibly do your job out of Boston.  For (c), that might mean, for example, you need to make visits to client locations in SF on short-notice to meet business requirements.  If you are only physically needed in SF occasionally and with ""reasonable"" notice, I don't think you could make it under (c), although if the employer doesn't want to pay travel costs, then you might still make it under (a) in this case." "There's no ""183 days"" rule. As a US citizen you must pay taxes on all your income, where you live is irrelevant."