property owned 50/50 between my brother and me
"Not sure what you are talking about.  The house isn't part of a business so neither of you can deduct half of normal maintenance and repairs.  It is just the cost of having a house.   The only time this would be untrue is if the thing that you are buying for the house is part of a special deduction or rebate for that tax year.  For instance the US has been running rebates and deductions on certain household items that reduce energy - namely insulation, windows, doors, and heating/cooling systems (much more but those are the normal things). And in actuality if your brother is using the entire house as a living quarters you should be charging him some sort of rent.  The rent could be up to the current monthly market price of the home minus 50%.  If it were my family I would probably charge them what I would pay for a 3% loan on the house minus 50%.   Going back to the repairs... Really if these repairs are upgrades and not things caused by using the house and ""breaking"" or ""wearing"" things you should be paying half of this, as anything that contributes to the increased property value should be paid for equally if you both are expecting to take home 50% a piece once you sell it." "ASSUMING you're talking about a property in the United States, the answer generally would be ""no"".  You aren't actually paying any of the expenses for the property and yet you want to take the deductions for doing so?  That's a rather cheeky move, I'd say! (grin)   It probably would lead to some real strife with your brother, since he would have proper claim to those credit on the basis he's the one footing the bills for the property.  Before you do anything like what you're talking about, it might be best to speak with him, because both of you are running the very real risk of an audit, and if that happens then I can guarantee the IRS will slap the daylights out of you for it.  Your brother, I'm sure, is already claiming all of the deductions he can for what he's putting into the property, and on top of that you want to file for your half.  What half are you referring to, when your out-of-pocket is zero?  So what you're saying is, you think that between you and your brother you should be able to take a credit of 150% of the actual deductions...Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. I strongly encourage you to talk to a tax professional, but if you get a different answer to this than what I've already given then I'd be stunned.   I hope this helps. Good luck!"
Rebalancing your portfolio doesn't have to include selling.  You could simply adjust your buying to keep your portfolio in balance.  If you portfolio has shifted from 50% stocks and 50% bonds to 75% stocks and 25% bonds, you can just only use new savings to buy bonds, until you are back at 50-50. Remember to take into account taxes if you are thinking of selling to rebalance in taxable accounts. The goal of rebalancing is to keep your exposures the way that you want them.  Assuming that you had a good reason to have a portfolio of 50% stocks and 50% bonds, you probably want to keep your portfolio similar in the future.  If you end up with a portfolio of 75% stocks and 25% bonds due to stock market fluctuations, the exposure and the risk / return profile of your portfolio will have changed, and it's probably not something that you want. You don't want to rebalance just for the sake of rebalancing either.  There can be costs to rebalancing (taxes, transaction fees, etc...) and these aren't always worth the effort.  That's why you don't need to rebalance every month or if your portfolio has shifted from 50/50 to 51/49. I take a look at my portfolio once a year, and adjust my automated investments so that by the end of the next year I'm back to the ratio I want. "Spain is one of the most socialists states in Europe. I know because I live here. You are totally correct that the former owners broke it, what you are not right about is that they were private. Caja Madrid was a special partnership between the local governments and some private parties. All the ""cajas"" in Spain were set up that way and all had government representatives in their boards.  EDIT: I just checked and turns out Caja Madrid, which represents 50% of Bankia, was 100% owned by the Madrid local government. The rest of the 50% of Bankia was formed with other ""cajas"" which were partly or completely owned by their local governments as well.  Also is worth noting that the spanish private banks are also in trouble and have survived only because of the liquidity provided by the ECB, but they are not even close to the level of bankruption that the ""cajas"" have achieved." "My wife and I maintain seperate accounts. We have the bills split between us so that certain bills are paid by one of us, and other bills by the other. This is not a perfect 50/50 split as we don't make the same amount of money, but comparable enough that neither feels like they're doing all the bills alone. Our investments are similar. That means we each have a pool of money that we can spend on toys or entertainment as we see fit without overspending. Once my bills are paid and my savings are paid for the month, if I want to go buy some DVDs and my wife wants to buy a new lens for the camera, we don't have to agree. We just use our own money and do it. For us that's led to minimal friction or arguments over what to spend money on, simply because we aren't using the same pool. Getting it work requires getting the split right AND having the mindset that the other person is just as entitled to spend their share of the money as you are to spend yours. It really helps to eliminate issues where she spent money that I expected to be able to spend before I could, which can happen in a joint account. (We have no joint accounts, only things like the mortgage are in both our names.) I've been told by more then one person that how we're doing it is ""wrong"", but it works a lot better for us then trying to combine finances ever did. I think it also helps that we're younger, and this seems far less common amongst older couples." I too was very confused when I tried to be tricky and paid down my balance BEFORE the bill date. I thought this would be a great thing because it would show my utilization near zero percent. The opposite happen, it dropped my credit score from 762 to 708. Here is the best example I can come up with when it comes to utilization. Lets pretend you are an insurance company and you trying to figure out who are the best risk drivers. The people that drive 10% of the day are a better risk than the people that drive 50% of the day. The people that drive 50% of the day are a better risk than the people that drive 90% of the day. Here is the rub when people drive 0%. When you look at the people at 0% they appear to be walking, busing or flying. What they are NOT doing is driving. Since they are not driving (using Credit) they are viewed as POOR drivers since they are not keeping up on their driving skills. (Paying bills, watching how they spend, and managing their debt). So, now before the billing date I pay down my balance to something between 5 to 10% of my utilization. After the bill is issued, I pay it off in FULL. ( I am not going to PAY these crazy interest rates). What shows up on my credit report is a person that is driving his credit between 5 and 10% utilization. It shows I know I how to manage my revolving accounts. I know it's dumb, you would think they reward people that have zero debt, I don't hate banks I hate the game. ( I do love me some reward points =)) Owing money to family members can create serious problems. Taking out a purchase-money mortgage to pay your sister for her share is the best way to avoid future friction and, possibly, outright alienation. "I can only share with you my happened with my wife and I. First, and foremost, if you think you need to protect your assets for some reason then do so. Be open and honest about it. If we get a divorce, X stays with me, and Y stays with you.  This seems silly, even when your doing it, but it's important. You can speak with a lawyer about this stuff as you need to, but get it in writing. Now I know this seems like planning for failure, but if you feel that foo is important to you, and you want to retain ownership of foo no mater what, then you have to do this step. It also works both ways. You can use, with some limitations, this to insulate your new family unit from your personal risks. For example, my business is mine. If we break up it stays mine. The income is shared, but the business is mine. This creates a barrier that if someone from 10 years ago sues my business, then my wife is protected from that. Keep in mind, different countries different rules. Next, and this is my advise. Give up on ""his and hers"" everything. It's just ""ours"". Together you make 5400€ decide how to spend 5400€ together. Pick your goals together. The pot is 5400€. End of line. It doesn't matter how much from one person or how much from another (unless your talking about mitigating losses from sick days or injuries or leave etc.). All that matters is that you make 5400€. Start your budgeting there.  Next setup an equal allowance. That is money, set aside for non-sense reasons. I like to buy video games, my wife likes to buy books. This is not for vacation, or stuff together, but just little, tiny stuff you can do for your self, without asking  ""permission"". The number should be small, and equal. Maybe 50€.  Finally setup a budget. House Stuff 200€, Car stuff 400€. etc. etc. then it doesn't matter who bought the house stuff. You only have to coordinate so that you don't both buy house stuff. After some time (took us around 6 months) you will find out how this works and you can add on some rules. For example, I don't go to Best Buy alone. I will spend too much on ""house stuff"". My wife doesn't like to make the budget, so I handle that, then we go over it. Things like that." To add to ChrisInEdmonton's answer: Your conveyancing solicitor should be able to advise on the details, but a typical arrangement involves: As an alternative to the numbers in Chris' answer, it could be argued that you should first be reimbursed for the fees you paid (accounting for inflation), but that any remaining profits from the property itself should be divided in proportion to your individual investments (so 51.6% to you, and 48.4% to your partner, assuming you contribute to the loans equally). "If your parents are not on the deed then I am not sure how it could be their house. It seems like the sale was done unofficially. If your parents or aunt pass away this could be a real mess. Make this official ASAP. It might be possible for your aunt to gift you the house. This may have tax implication but the article below suggests that it may not be an issue. http://www.bankrate.com/finance/real-estate/aunt-be-taxed-for-bargain-price-on-house.aspx As you're probably aware, owning a house is expensive. Make sure you can afford taxes, bills, and maintenance. Things add up fast.  I should have address the ""rent to own"" plan. If you plan on transferring the house from your aunt to you by renting with $0 monthly payment and then claiming it is all paid off, then I think this would be considered a gifting of the house from your aunt to you. It sounds like fraud to claim you paid something that you didn't. In the end, it is either a gift from your parents or from your aunt. The sooner you get the house in your name the better"