Why is tax being paid on my salary multiple times?
Businesses do not pay income tax on money that they pay out as salary to their employees.  Businesses generally only pay income tax on profit. Profit is the money that comes in (revenue) minus the business expenses.  Payroll to the employees is a deductible business expense. "Your wages are an expense to your employer and are therefore 100% tax deductible in the business income.  The company should not be paying tax on that, so your double-tax scenario, as described, isn't really correct. [The phrase ""double taxation"" with respect to US corporations usually comes into play with dividends.  In that case, however, it's the shareholders (owners) that pay double.  The answer to ""why?"" in that case can only be ""because it's the law.""]"
"The decision as to what counts as income is up to the bank. You'll need to ask them whether or not rental income can be included in the total. I can offer some anecdotal evidence: when I applied for a mortgage to buy my home, I already had a rental property with a buy-to-let mortgage on it. Initially the bank regarded that property as a liability, not an asset, because it was mortgaged! However, once I was able to show that there was a good history of receiving enough rent, they chose to ignore the property altogether -- i.e. it wasn't regarded as a liability, but it wasn't regarded as a source of income either. More generally, as AakashM says, residential mortgages are computed based on affordability, which is more than just a multiple of your salary. To answer your specific questions: Covered above; it's up to the bank. If you're married, and you don't have a written tenancy agreement, and you're not declaring the ""rent"" on your tax return, then it seems unlikely that this would be regarded as income at all. Conversely, if your partner is earning, why not put their name on the mortgage application too? Buy-to-let mortgages are treated differently. While it used to be the case that they were assessed on rental income only, nowadays lenders may ask for proof of the landlord's income from other sources. Note that a BTL cannot be used for a property you intend to live in, and a residential mortgage cannot be used for a property you intend to let to tenants -- at least, not without the bank's permission." The finance team from your company should be able to advise you. From what I understand you are Indian Citizen for Tax purposes. Any income you receive globally is taxable in India. In this specific case you are still having a Employee relationship with your employer and as such the place of work does not matter. You are still liable to pay tax in India on the salary. If you are out of India for more than 182 days, you can be considered as Non-Resident from tax point of view. However this clause would not be of any benefit to you as are having a Employee / Employer relationship and being paid in India. Edit: This is only about the India portion of taxes. There maybe a UK protion of it as well, plus legally can you work and your type of Visa in UK may have a bearing on the answer I'm not sure why you're confusing the two unrelated things. 1040ES is your estimated tax payments. 941 is your corporation's payroll tax report. They have nothing to do with each other. You being the corporation's employee is accidental, and can only help you to avoid 1040ES and use the W2 withholding instead - like any other employee. From the IRS standpoint you're not running a LLC - you're running a corporation, and you're that corporation's employee. While technically you're self-employed, from tax perspective - you're not (to the extent of your corporate salary, at least). "Why isn't the above the business model of a loan? It is the model of some types of loans. It's called a ""Line of credit"" (LOC). I have two them, one for my business, and one for me personally. (Why does this question exist:) Is it an 30-year loan or a 10-year loan? As you mentioned, the concept of term doesn't exist for these types of loans. As long as I pay the interest and don't go over the max of my credit limit, I could keep the money indefinitely. Due to this, lines of credit almost always have a variable interest rate. (In the US they are tied to the Prime rate.) (Why does this question exist:) If you pay extra, do you want the extra to go toward the interest or toward the principal? Again, this concept also doesn't exist with a LOC. There is a minimum payment that you must make each month, but there is nothing that prevents you from making the minimum payment and then immediately taking the exact payment you made back out again. Of course this increases the total you owe, and eventually you would hit your maximum credit limit and would no longer be able to take the full payment back out. Years ago I maxed out my business line and didn't have enough money to make the payment so my bank was nice enough to raise my limit for me (so I could take enough out to make the payment), but if I did that multiple times I'm sure they would have eventually said no. Fortunately my clients finally paid me and I paid off the line, but I still keep the LOC today even though I rarely use it. By the way, beyond traditional LOCs, they also exist in other forms, both secured and unsecured. A common secured product in the US is a 2nd lien holder to a home (the first being the mortgage), called a HELOC (Home Equity Line Of Credit). Many banks also offer unsecured LOCs on a checking account which they sometimes call ""overdraft protection"". Update: based on a comment to this answer, I now realize that the full question now becomes something similar to: Given that the Line of Credit loan model exists, why aren't all loans like this? or, refining it further: What advantages do other loan types have over the Line of Credit model, specifically finite term loans? A main advantage of a term loan over a line of credit is that the bank knows when they will get the money back. If every loan a bank made was a LOC product, and no one ever paid it back, then they'd eventually run out of money. That's obviously an oversimplification but the principle (pun intended) holds. To prevent this the bank would have to call due the loan, and doing this usually leaves customers angry. Years ago I had a business LOC with a bank that discontinued their business LOC product, and called every customer's loan due. I had a balance and they offered to convert it to a 5 year term loan, which I did, but I was so mad at them that I switched banks and paid off the term loan shortly after. Another advantage of a term loan is it forces the customer to be a little more responsible. Lines of credit can be dangerous for those that misuse it because if the amount owed is driven up due to bad behavior, there is nothing to force the bad behavior to stop. A perfect example of this can be found with governments. Some governments borrow money until their line of credit is used up, and then they just keep increasing their credit limit. There is no incentive for the officials in charge of the government to stop doing this because it isn't even their money. If those lines of credits were converted to term loans, the government would be forced to increase revenue and/or decrease expenses, which is the only way to get out of debt. Some other advantages of term loans over a LOC:" If you make 100K in the U.S., you are most definitely NOT paying 25.7% tax federally. Only money that you made over 37.5K is even charged at 25% AND you didn't even factor in that you get deductions which decrease your effective tax rate. Where are you pulling your numbers? "See Publication 505, specifically the section on ""Annualized Income Installment Method"", which says: If you do not receive your income evenly throughout the year (for example, your income from a repair shop you operate is much larger in the summer than it is during the rest of the year), your required estimated tax payment for one or more periods may be less than the amount figured using the regular installment method. The publication includes a worksheet and explanation of how to calculate the estimated tax due for each period when you have unequal income.  If you had no freelance income during a period, you shouldn't owe any estimated tax for that period. However, the process for calculating the estimated tax using this method is a good bit more complex and confusing than using the ""short"" method (in which you just estimate how much tax you will owe for the year and divide it into four equal pieces).  Therefore, in future years you might want to still use the equal-payments method if you can swing it.  (It's too late for this year since you missed the April deadline for the first payment.)  If you can estimate the total amount of freelance income you'll receive (even though you might not be able to estimate when you'll receive it), you can probably still use the simpler method.  If you really have no idea how much money you'll make over the year, you could either use the more complex computation, or you could use a very high estimate to ensure you pay enough tax, and you'll get a refund if you pay too much." Any such amount has to be reported by Skrill and the Bank to RBI. As long as your earnings are legitimate and you are paying the taxes you shouldn't be worried. If its for services rendered, you would have a contract and / or invoice ... ie some paper work. It is important to keep the paper work in order. "It's not a ""withholding tax"" it's a ""withholding tax amount"". That is, they are not taxing you but they are holding back some of your withdrawal and sending it to the government to cover any taxes you will need to pay on the withdrawal. Same as your employer withholds some of your salary and sends it to the government for you. You won't claim it as a deduction, but it will go at the end along with tax withheld from your salary or anything else. So if you owe $10,000 of tax but various entities have already sent the government $11,000 on your behalf, you will get a $1,000 refund."