UK Limited Company paying third party medical costs
According to HMRC's manual BIM42105, you can't deduct expenses of this kind when calculating your profits for corporation tax: No deduction is allowed for expenditure not incurred wholly and exclusively for trade purposes So at the least, the company will have to pay corporation tax on this donation at some point, assuming it ever makes any profits. There's also the risk that HMRC would say that what is really happening is that you are making a personal donation to this person and the company is giving you income to allow you to do it. In that case, you'd be liable to income tax and employees national insurance, and the company liable to employers national insurance. It should then be deductible from corporation tax, though. One possibility to consider would be making an arrangement with a registered UK charity where you would donate the necessary amount for the specific purpose of covering medical costs of that particular person. Charitable donations are expressly deductible from business profits.     Some charities may be genuinely interested in helping people from developing countries get quality medical help that's not available in those countries. There may be some organizations in the proposed beneficiary's country that have contacts among the UK charities. PS. I am not a lawyer or an accountant, nor do I claim to be either. The above is not a legal or accounting advice. Consider seeking professional assistance.
"A checking account almost never earns any significant interest. A checking accounts often does not have any limits in terms of how many times you can draw funds from it. A checking account often comes with a debit card allowing you to pay online, draw cash from an ATM machine etc. A savings accounts has much higher yields, so you should be getting a decent interest. Unfortunately in the current climate this is not always true (especially not with the big banks) so you may want to look into a high-yield savings account. A savings account is often limited in terms of number of transactions, meaning you can't constantly draw funds from it, it must be stable. A savings account often does not come with a debit card. No, a savings account should not be used for regular transactions. It's an account to park your money for a medium/long time. Understand that banks loan out the money in your savings account to third-parties, so if it would constantly fluctuate, they can't have this money available to others. In return of you parking your money with your bank, you should get a nice return (interest). Yes, but it's not common. Assuming you are from USA, passing banking data (account number and routing number) to third-parties is not safe. In Europe it's totally safe to share your account number to accept money. Depends, some banks do charge fees, some don't. Often there are fees when you're not using the account (no transactions), or when you don't have a certain minimum in an account. Assuming you are American (please specify this information clearly in future) I would look into an ""internet bank"", like Ally. They don't have many fees and they have an excellent high-yield savings account. They also give you a debit card. Disadvantage is that they don't have physical branches." In the US, dividends have special tax treatment similar to, but not the same as Capital Gains. No easy way to transform one to the other, the very fact that you invested your money in a company that has returned part of your capital as income means it is just that, income. Also in the US, you could invest in Master Limited Partnerships. These are companies that make distributions that are treated as a return of capital, instead of dividends. Throughout the life of the investment you receive tax forms that assign part of the operating expense/loss of the company to you as a tax payer. Then at the end of the investment life you are required to recapture those losses as Capital Gains on sale of the stock. In some ways, these investments do exactly what you are asking about. They transform periodic income into later capital gains, basically deferring tax on the income until the sale of the security. Here is an article I found about MLPs coming to the UK through an ETF: Master Limited Partnerships in the UK "Another problem with this plan (assuming you get past Rocky's answer somehow) is that you assume that $50K in construction costs will translate to $50K in increased value. That's not always true; the ROI on home improvements is usually a lot less than 100%. You'd also owe more property taxes on your improvements, which would cut into your plan somewhat. But you also can't keep doing this forever. Soon enough, you'd run out of physical and/or legal space to keep adding additions to the house (zoning tends to limit how much you can build, unless you're in the middle of nowhere, and eventually you'd fill the lot), even if you did manage to keep obtaining more and more loans. And you'd quickly reach the point of diminishing returns on your expansions. Many homebuyers might be prepared to pay more for a third or fourth bedroom, but vanishingly few in most markets will pay substantially more for a second billiards room or a third home theater. At some point, your house isn't a mansion, it's ""that ridiculous castle"" only an eccentric would want, and the pool of potential buyers (and the price they'll pay for it) diminishes.  And the lender, not being stupid, isn't going to go on financing your creation of a monstrosity, because they are the ones who will be stuck with the place if you default." "From your explanation the Sole Trader option is more appropriate and certainly easier to manage.  There are many differences but the pertinent and most important ones are as follows. The main difference in your case would be tax and administration.  As a sole trader you would need to do a tax return once a year and if you earned less than £11.5k you wouldn't have to pay any UK tax, assuming you have no other income and are a ""standard"" tax payer.  The current tax allowance is £11.5k although this can change. Submitting your own tax return is relatively straighforward although you may want to consult an accountant.  It is generally easier to run as sole trader versus a Limited Company, ie less paperwork and beaureaucracy. If you go down the Limited Company route, the company would be liable to pay Corporation Tax on any profits and this process is more complicated and you would probably need an accountant to do that for you, which is likely to cost a few hundred pounds every year.  You can do it yourself but the process is not as simple as doing your own income tax return. Also as a sole trader you can do what you like with any income, you can spend it and treat it as your own wages.  You can't do that if you set up a Limited Company as the income is ""owned"" by the company and so you would need to in effect pay yourself a wage from the company.  In other words it's more complex than if you are a sole trader. The main advantage to a Limited Company is that it is easier to sell the business if you want to at a later date.  There is nothing stopping you setting up a Limited Company later on, after beign a sole trader if you want to.  They can also be more tax-efficient but this would not be relevant to your case if you are earning relatively small sums, if your income increases then you may want to reconsider. You can see more information here:  https://www.duport.co.uk/company-formation/sole-trader-vs-limited-company.php (I have been both a sole trader and also set up my own Limited Company)" Probably means cutting the travel short. A small business owner employing specialist staff needs to identify and plan for this risk.   The plan might be to personally cover for the staff until a replacement is found.   Ideally in this situation the business will be able to support the salary of two staff in the role, even if one is part time or an apprentice/trainee. This is the approach our business takes with key staff. "This information is clearly ""material"" (large impact) and ""non-public"" according to the statement of the problem.  Also, decisions like United States v. Carpenter make it clear that you do not need to be a member of the company to do illegal insider trading on its stock. Importantly though, stackexchange is not a place for legal advice and this answer should not be construed as such.  Legal/compliance at Company A would be a good place to start asking questions." The paper is appealing to its readership to consider the profit and loss generated by Starbucks in UK operations as independent of other operations in other countries. Starbucks was profitable in the UK, but they offset these profits with investments in other overseas operations (not UK), to lower their tax rate in the UK. To the Guardian this seems unfair, even though UK law permits this. Seems like there is some case to be made for considering a change in the law. It's my understanding that deferred revenue will be included as income as the services are rendered. In this way, gains originating from deferred revenue are not recognized until they are actually earned.  It's a formality so the accounting adheres to the matching principle. It may help to view a DR as an advance payment (say like what an airline may do with ticket purchases that occur before the flight).   It sounds like you're wanting to penalize the business for having to eventually provide a service. But I don't know if that would be accurate, I mean, from the business's perspective, isn't it always preferable to be paid in advance? Are you concerned the company may not have any recourse should the customer try to back out or something?  I don't think I'm understanding your question, could you come at it from another angle to explain it?