Multi-year profit/tax question
"This is called ""Net Operating Loss"", and it is in fact applicable for individuals as well. You can, under certain circumstances, have NOL even as an individual. But it is far more common in the corporate world. What happens is that you can carry it back or forward, and get refund on taxes paid or adjust income for taxes to pay. In your example, you could carry the $75 NOL back and deduct it from the prior year earnings, reducing the taxable income from $100 to $25, getting $18.75 of the $25 paid as taxes - back. The link is for individual NOL, corporate rules are different, but the principle is the same."
"Hobby expenses are not tax deductible.  Business expenses are, but only if it's a bona fide business.  First they look at profitability: if you reported a net profit (i.e. paid taxes) in your first 3 years, they will believe you rant on Youtube for a living.   Remember, by the time they get around to auditing you, you'll likely be well into, or through, your third year.   There is an exception for farms.  Other than that, if you lose money year after year, you better be able to show that you look, walk and quack like a business; and one with a reasonable business reason for delayed profitability.  For instance Netflix's old business model of mailing DVDs had very high fixed infrastructure expense that took years to turn profitable, but was a very sensible model.  They're fine with that.  Pets.com swandived into oblivion but they earnestly tried. They're fine with that too.  You can't mix all your activities. If you're an electrician specializing in IoT and smart homes, can you deduct a trip to the CES trade show, you bet.  Blackhat conference, arguable.  SES?  No way.  Now if you had a second business of a product-reco site which profited by ads and affiliate links, then SES would be fine to deduct from that business.  But if this second business loses money every year, it's a hobby and not deductible at all.  That person would want separate accounting books for the electrician and webmaster businesses.  That's a basic ""duck test"" of a business vs. a hobby. You need to be able to show how each business gets income and pays expense separate from every other business and your personal life.  It's a best-practice to give each business a separate checking account and checkbook. You don't need to risk tax penalties on a business-larva that may never pupate.  You can amend your taxes up to 3 years after the proper filing date.  I save my expense reciepts for each tax year, and if a business becomes justifiable, I go back and amend past years' tax forms, taking those deductions.  IRS gives me a refund check, with interest!" "It is important to remember that the stock price in principle reflects the value of the company, so the market cap should drop upon issuance of the the dividend. However, the above reasoning neglects to consider taxes, which make the question a bit more interesting. The key fact is that different investors are going to get taxed on the dividend to varying degrees, ranging from 20% for qualified dividends in the USA for a high-income individual in a taxable account (and even worse for non-qualified dividends) to 0% for tax-exempt nonprofits, retirement accounts, and low-income individuals. The high-tax investors are going to be a bit averse to paying tax on that dividend, whereas the tax-free investors are not. Hence in a tax-rational market the tax-free investors are going to be the ones buying right before a dividend and the tax-paying investors will be buying right afterwards. Tax-exempt investors could in principle make some amount of money buying dividends to keep them off the tax-paying investors' books.  (Of course, the strategy could backfire if too many people did it all at once.) That said, the tax-payers have the tax disincentive to prevent them from fully exploiting the opposite strategy of selling just before a dividend.  In particular, they are subject to capital gains tax when they sell at a profit (unless they have enough compensating capital losses), and it is to their after-tax profit to defer taxation by not trading. That said, the stock market has well-known irrationality when it comes to considering tax consequences, so logic based on assumed rationality of the market does not always apply to the extent one would expect.   The foremost example of tax-irrationality is the so-called ""dividend paradox"", which basically states that corporations should favor stock buybacks (or perhaps loan repayment) to the complete exclusion of dividends because capital gains are taxed less harshly than dividends in a variety of ways, some of which are subtle: 1) Historically (although not currently in the USA for qualified dividends) the tax rate was higher for dividends.  (In Canada, for example, dividends are taxed at twice the rate of capital gains.) 2) If you die holding appreciated stock then you (meaning your heirs) completely escape US the capital gains tax on the accrual during your lifetime. 3) Capital gains tax can be deferred by simply not selling.  In comparison to dividends, this is roughly equivalent to getting a tax-free loan from the government which is invested for profit and paid at a later date after inflation has eaten away at the real value of the loan.  For example, if all your stock investments increase by 10%/year but you sell every year, in a high-tax bracket situation you're total after-tax return will be only 8% per year.  In contrast, if you hold the same investments for many many years and then sell, your total return will be nearly 10% per year, because you only pay 20% once (at the end). 4) A capital gain can often be neutralized by a capital loss in another stock, so that no tax results.  If you loose money on a stock that is paying dividends, you're still going to have to pay tax on that dividend.  There are companies that borrow money to pay out that taxable-dividend each quarter, which seems like gross tax malpractice on the part of the CFO. (If the dividend paradox doesn't make sense, first consider the case that you owned ALL the shares of a company.  It wouldn't matter to you at all on a pre-tax basis whether you got a $1000 company buyback or a $1000 dividend, because after the buyback/dividend you'd still own the entire company and $1000.  The number of shares would be reduced, but objecting that you owned fewer shares after the buyback would be like saying you have become shorter if your height is measured in inches rather than centimeters.) [Of course, in the case of many shareholders you can get burned by failing to sell into the buyback when the share price is too high, but that is another matter.]" "It's a tough question, because there is society and individual to consider, and the society's effects on the individual.  Currently, employers don't have to provide insurance, they do it to compete in the employee marketplace. Employers have an advantage over employees in that regard, because they can procure insurance at a lower cost that employees can, and they get tax breaks for doing so. Employers providing health insurance get a more stable relationship with their employees, because employees always hold great value in having an employee who provides good benefits.  The company I work for provides good benefits, but suppose tomorrow they told me ""Hey Mutatron, we're not providing benefits anymore, but we'll bump your salary to what your benefits are worth, plus enough to compensate for the tax break we get."" So now, everything is equal to what it was before, but I have to go out and find my own insurance, which is a hassle, but presumably because of the PPACA I can get a good value and carry this insurance with me wherever I go, and never have to mess with changing every time I change jobs.  But suppose all the employers do this, so now there are no employer-provided health plans, and ten or twenty years down the line they've all just taken advantage so that wages haven't kept up and they've essentially pocketed the difference, or passed it on to their customers. Now people have less money to buy health insurance, and those near the bottom will now have to rely on the government to assist with providing health insurance.  This is the way it works now with the minimum wage. A recent report found that WalMart employees rely on welfare to the tune of [$2.66 billion a year](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/10/1141724/-Walmart-fuels-inequality-epidemic-taking-advantage-of-our-safety-net), while the company makes $15 billion in profit. So 18% of Walmart's profits are an indirect subsidy from the US taxpayer, which comes to about $48 per US citizen, or about $208 a year for the top 50% of wage earners.  Even so, I think I'd prefer to get my whole compensation package in one shot, all else being equal. That last part is important, though, I would need to get all the breaks my employer gets for providing myself with health insurance." "Buying now with a mortgage gets you: Waiting to buy with all cash gets you: These are also some of the pros or cons for the rent or buy dilemma that Paul mentioned in comments to the OP. This is a very complex, multi-faceted question, that would not respond well to being put into any equation or financial model. Most people answer the question with ""buy the home now with a mortgage"" if they can pay for the down payment. This is why the mortgage industry exists. The people who would want to finance now rather than buy with all cash later would not only be analyzing the question in terms of financial health but also in terms of general well being. They might consider the tremendous pride that comes with home ownership and living under a roof of one's own. Who can say that those people are wrong?" I have a CPA. They said that it isn't possible. However, I've seen on message boards that it indeed IS possible, multiple times. I'll likely reach out to another CPA. However, I am interested to hear from somebody who has done this before, so that I at least have a name or defined process for what I'm attempting to do. Here's an article on it that might help: http://thefinancebuff.com/restricted-stock-units-rsu-sales-and.html One of the tricky things is that you probably have the value of the vested shares and withheld taxes already on your W-2. This confuses everyone including the IRS (they sent me one of those audits-by-mail one year, where the issue was they wanted to double-count stock compensation that was on both 1099-B and W-2; a quick letter explaining this and they were happy). The general idea is that when you first irrevocably own the stock (it vests) then that's income, because you're receiving something of value. So this goes on a W-2 and is taxed as income, not capital gains. Conceptually you've just spent however many dollars in income to buy stock, so that's your basis on the stock. For tax paid, if your employer withheld taxes, it should be included in your W-2. In that case you would not separately list it elsewhere. "Q) Will I have to submit the accounts for the Swiss Business even though Im not on the payroll - and the business makes hardly any profit each year. I can of course get our accounts each year - BUT - they will be in Swiss German! You will have to submit on your income from the business.  The term ""partnership"" refers to a specific business entity type in the U.S.  I'm not sure if you're using it the same way.  In a partnership in the U.S. you pay income tax on your share of the partnership's income whether or not you actually receive income in your personal account.  There's not enough information here to know if that applies in your case. (In the U.S., the partnership itself does not pay income tax - It is a ""disregarded entity"" for tax purposes, with the tax liability passed through to the partners as individuals.) Q) Will I need to have this translated!? Is there any format/procedure to this!? Will it have to be translated by my Swiss accountants? - and if so - which parts of the documentation need to be translated!? As regards language, you will file a tax return on a U.S. form presumably in English.  You will not have to submit your account information on any other form, so the fact that your documentation is in German does not matter.  The only exception that comes to mind is that you could potentially get audited (just like anyone else filing taxes in the U.S.) in which case you might need to produce your documentation.  That situation is rare enough that I wouldn't worry about it though.  I'm not sure if they'd take it in German or force you to get a translation. I was told that if I sell the business (and property) after I aquire a greencard - that I will be liable to 15% tax of the profit I'd made. I also understand that any tax paid (on selling) in Switzerland will be deducted from the 15%!? Q) Is this correct!? The long-term capital gains rate is 15% for most people. (At very high incomes it is 20%.)  It sounds like you would qualify for long-term (held for greater than 1 year) capital gains in this case, although the details might matter. There is a foreign tax credit, but I'm not completely sure if it would apply in this case. (If forced to guess, I would say that it does.)  If you search for ""foreign tax credit"" and ""IRS"" you should get to the information that you need pretty quickly. I will effectively have ALL the paperwork for this - as we'll need to do the same in Switzerland. But again, it will be in Swiss German. Q) Would this be a problem if its presented in Swiss German!? Even in this case you will not need to submit any of your paperwork to the IRS, unless you get audited.  See earlier comments." "It's not possible to determine whether you can ""expect a refund"" or whether you are claiming the right number of exemptions from the information given.   If your wife were not working and you did not do independent contracting, then the answer would be much simpler.  However, in this case, we must also factor in how much your contracting brings in (since you must pay income tax on that, as well as Medicare and, probably, Social Security), whether you are filing jointly or separately, and your wife's income from her business.   There are also other factors such as whether you'll be claiming certain child care expenses, and certain tax credits which may phase out depending on your income.   If you can accurately estimate your total household income for the year, and separate that into income from wages, contracting, and your wife's business, as well as your expenses for things like state and local income and property taxes, then you can make a very reasonable estimate about your total tax burden (including the self-employment taxes on your non-wage income) and then determine whether you are having enough tax withheld from your paycheck.  Some people may find that they should have additional tax withheld to compensate for these expenses (see IRS W-4 Line #6)."