What laws/regulations are there regardings gifts in the form of large sums of money?
"This depends on the country(ies) involved. US citizen/resident giving gifts is required to pay a gift tax. The recipient of the gift, however, pays nothing. The value of the gift at the time of the gift-giving is used to determine the tax, and an exclusion of $14000 per person per year (as of 2013) is available to allow smaller gifts to be given without too much of a red tape. There's also a lifetime exemption which is shared between the gift tax and the estate tax. This exemption is $5.25M in 2013.  The reason the gift tax exists in the US is because the US tax code is very aggressive. This is basically double taxation, similarly to estate tax. Gifts/estates are after-tax money, i.e.: income tax has been paid on them, yet the government taxes them again. Why? The excuse is to disallow shifting of income: if one person has high income tax brackets, he may give some of his income-producing property to another person with lesser brackets who would then pay less income taxes (for example, parents would transfer property to children). Similarly capital gains could be shifted. Generation-skipping tax is yet another complication to disallow people use gifts to avoid estate taxes: a grandparent would gift stuff to grandchildren, thus skipping a level of estate taxes (the parents in between). In other countries the tax codes may be less aggressive, and not tax gifts/inheritance as this money has been taxed before. This is a more fair situation, IMHO, yet it means that wealth moves from generation to generation without the ""general public"" benefiting from it. So if you're a US person and considering giving or receiving a gift - you need to consult with a tax adviser about the consequences. Similarly with other countries, if you are subject to their tax laws." "This forum is not intended to be a discussion group, but I would like to add a different perspective, especially for @MrChrister, on  @littleadv's rhetorical question  ""... estates are after-tax money, i.e.: income tax has been paid on them,    yet the government taxes them again. Why?"" For the cash in an estate, yes, that is after-tax money, but consider other assets such as stocks and real estate. Suppose a rich man bought stock in a small computer start-up company at $10 a share about 35 years ago, and that stock is now worth $500 a share. The man dies and his will bequeaths the shares to his son. According to US tax law, the son's basis in the shares is $500 per share, that is, if the son sells the shares, his capital gains are computed as if he had purchased the shares for $500 each. The son pays no taxes on the inheritance he receives. The deceased father's last income tax return (filed by the executor of the father's will) does not list the $490/share gain as a capital gain since the father did not sell the stock (the gain is what is called an unrealized gain), and so there is no income tax due from the father on the $490/share. Now, if there is no estate tax whatsoever, the father's estate  tax return pays no tax on that gain of $490 per share either. Would this be considered an equitable system? Should the government not tax the gain at all? It is worth noting that it would be possible for a government to eliminate estate taxes entirely, but instead have tax laws  that say that unrealized gains on the deceased's property would be taxed (as capital gains) on the deceased's final tax return."
It will not be a problem; people regularly move larger sums. It will be reported to law authorities as large enough to be potentially of interest, but since you can explain it that's fine. "A loan is not a taxable income. Neither is a gift. Loans are repaid with interest. The interest is taxable income to the lender, and may or may not be deductible to the borrower, depending on how the loan proceeds were used. Gifts are taxable to the donor (the person giving the gift) under the gift tax, they're not a taxable income to the recipient. Some gifts are exempt or excluded from gift tax (there's the annual exemption limit, lifetime exclusion which is correlated to the estate tax, various specific purpose gifts or transfers between spouses are exempt in general).  If you trade for something of equal value, is that considered income? Yes. Sale proceeds are taxable income, however your basis in the item sold is deductible from it. If you borrow a small amount of money for a short time, is that considered income? See above. Loan proceeds are not income. does the friend have to pay taxes when they get back their $10? No, repayment of the loan is not taxable income. Interest on it is. Do you have to pay taxes if you are paid back in a different format than originally paid? Form of payment doesn't matter. Barter trade doesn't affect the tax liability. The friend sold you lunches and you paid for them. The friend can deduct the cost of the lunches from the proceeds. What's left - is taxable income. Everything is translated to the functional currency at the fair market value at the time of the trade. you are required to pay taxes on the gross amount Very rarely taxes apply to gross income. Definitely not the US Federal Income taxes for individuals. An example of an exception would be the California LLC taxes. The State of California taxes LLCs under its jurisdiction on gross proceeds, regardless of the actual net income. This is very uncommon. However, the IRC (the US Federal Tax Code) is basically ""everything is taxable except what's not"", and the cost of generating income is one of the ""what's not"". That is why you can deduct the basis of the asset from your gross proceeds when you sell stuff and only pay taxes on the net difference." Taxi regulations exist to protect the public. It's not some racket to keep people out of the market.  Insurance: Uber/Lyft only insure their drivers while they are loaded. Meaning any other time they are driving around, even if they are driving to a call, they aren't insured. If they get in a wreck, their own car insurance won't cover it because they don't have taxi insurance which is a shit load more expensive than regular car insurance.  Red-lining: Red-lining is where taxi companies will not server certain neighborhoods, meaning they will neither pick up nor drop off in the area.  Discrimination: All classes are protected under taxi regulations with serious repercussions for discrimination. This also includes people with disabilities, like the blind and those in wheel chairs.  Rates: Taxi rates are typically approved by the city so that companies can't constantly change them. This is a big one as far as Uber/Lyft goes.  Really what it comes down to is Uber/Lyft need to operate on a level playing field. They are a taxi service. There is absolutely no question about this and it isn't up for dispute. They need to obey the same laws that taxi companies are still held to or be fined into oblivion. If you actually bother to read the taxi regs for your city, you will see they are there to protect you as a customer and have little benefit to taxi companies. About the only rule I can think of are the regulations regarding paying your fare. For all the rest, the taxi companies would be better off without because they wouldn't be forced to serve people they don't want to.  In my experience, the cab companies don't care about additional competition because it's the nature of the business. The fact that Uber/Lyft completely disregard all the regulations is what they have a problem with.  //Source: 8 years in the taxi industry. Basically, diversifying narrows the spread of possible results, raising  the center of the returns bell-curve by reducing the likelihood of extreme results at either the high or low end.  It's largely a matter of basic statistics. Bet double-or-nothing on a single coin flip, and those are the only possible results, and your odds of a disaster (losing most or all of the money) are 50%. Bet half of it on each of two coin flips, and your odds of losing are reduced to 25% at the cost of reducing your odds of winning to 25%, with 50% odds that you retain your money and can try the game again. Three coins divides the space further; the extremes are reduced to 12.5% each, with the middle being most likely. If that was all there was, this would be a zero-sum game and pure gambling. But the stock market is actually positive-sum, since companies are delivering part of their profits to their stockholder owners. This moves the center of the bell curve up a bit from break-even, historically to about +8%. This is why index funds produce a profit with very little active decision; they treat the variation as mostly random (which seems to work statistically) and just try to capture average results of a (hopefully) slightly above-average bucket of stocks and/or bonds. This approach is boring. It will never double your money overnight. On the other hand, it will never wipe you out overnight. If you have patience and are willing to let compound interest work for you, and trust that most market swings regress to the mean in the long run, it quietly builds your savings while not driving you crazy worrying about it. If all you are looking for is better return than the banks, and you have a reasonable amount of time before you need to pull the funds out, it's one of the more reliably predictable risk/reward trade-off points. You may want to refine this by biasing the mix of what you're holding. The simplest adjustment is how much you keep in each of several major investment categories. Large cap stocks, small cap stocks, bonds, and real estate (in the form of REITs) each have different baseline risk/return curves, and move in different ways in response to news, so maintaining a selected ratio between these buckets and adding the resulting curves together is one simple way to make fairly predictable adjustments to the width (and centerline) of the total bell curve. If you think you can do better than this, go for it. But index funds have been outperforming professionally managed funds (after the management fees are accounted for), and unless you are interested in spending a lot of time researching and playing with your money the odds of your doing much better aren't great unless you're willing to risk doing much worse. For me, boring is good. I want my savings to work for me rather than the other way around, and I don't consider the market at all interesting as a game. Others will feel differently. The way I have seen this done in the past is the business will withhold taxes on the amount of the gift.  Very much like receiving a bonus.  There are probably other ways to do it where taxes are avoided like you boss could buy the gift for you personally.  Not sure about all the legal ways to avoid taxes on this. "There is no doubt that this is a scam (you ask a British solicitor for help with this sort of problem, not an American friend) but it's not as obvious as some answers seem to assume. Inheritance taxes always have to be paid before legacies can be received, and the funds are part of the estate not ""in the hands of the government"". There are certainly ways round the problem (which vary by country), but if the facts were as the asker sets out, this would be a reasonable request. You can bet they aren't and it isn't." I can't speak to New Zealand law, but under US law, it's not a gift, so there is no tax. But there are some practical considerations. How good a relationship do you have with the banks on each end of the transfer? Transfers in the neighborhood of USD$10,000 are automatically considered suspicious and the banks are required to take extra steps to ensure you are not laundering the proceeds of criminal activity, funding terrorism, evading taxes, etc. You will have to fill out quite a bit of paperwork. This is tax fraud, plain and simple. I recently wrote an article The Step Transaction Doctrine, in which I explain that a series of events may each be legal, but aggregate to one transaction and the individual steps are ignored.  In this case, it goes beyond that, by accepting $5/mo you are already outside the tax code. As littleadv noted, you can't work for a legitimate business for free and not expect to have some kind of issue. The $14K/yr gift isn't a bona fide gift, but ties to that work.