Who should pay taxes in my typical case?
Once you turn 18 you should open an account in your own name and transfer the assets there. Currently your mom is the one responsible as far as the IRS cares with respect to taxes as it is her name on the account. The taxes due will be based on your mom's tax rate. As a good child you can reimburse your mom for the taxes that she has to on your behalf. Also legally that money currently belongs to her. Any legal judgement against your mom can claim that money and it is not available for using as an asset by you on credit applications and such. A better solution would have been for your mom to open a custodial account in your name. This way the money is still yours (you just don't have control of it until you turn 18). While probably not an issue here, the transferring of money between you and your mom (and then back) is considered a gift by the IRS. If the account was very well funded then you could run into having to deal with the annual gift limit and lifetime gift exclusion. Based on the clarification that the question is in reference to India: while I don't know the particulars of the law in India my advice of transferring the assets when you turn 18 still remains. The main difference that I would see been India and the US would be the gift tax / exclusions. Unless someone else knows otherwise I would still expect the law in India to see the current account as being the property of the mother. "The bottom line is you broke the law.  While this is pretty much victimless, it is none the less a violation of the law and should be avoided in the future.  I would have not agreed to this as a parent and it sets a bad precedent.  As such I would avoid trading and move the money into cash until you turn 18.   Once you turn 18 you should transfer the money into an account of your own.  From there you may proceed as you wish. As far as paying taxes, of course you need to pay them.  Your mother did this as a favor to you and by doing such you caused her tax bill to rise.  As a gesture of goodwill you should at least provide her with half of the profits, not the 15% you propose.  Fifteen percent would be the ""I am an ungrateful son"" minimum, and I would seriously consider giving all of the profits to her."
It sounds like something is getting lost in translation here. A business owner should not have to pay personal income tax on business expenses, with the caveat that they are truly business expenses. Here's an example where what you described could happen: Suppose a business has $200K in revenue, and $150K in legitimate business expenses (wages and owner salaries, taxes, services, products/goods, etc.) The profit for this example business is $50K. Depending on how the business is structured (sole proprietor, llc, s-corp, etc), the business owner(s) may have to pay personal income tax on the $50K in profit. If the owner then decided to have the business purchase a new vehicle solely for personal use with, say, $25K of that profit, then the owner may think he could avoid paying income tax on $25K of the $50K. However, this would not be considered a legitimate business expense, and therefore would have to be reclassified as personal income and would be taxed as if the $25K was paid to the owner. If the vehicle truly was used for legitimate business purposes then the business expenses would end up being $175K, with $25K left as profit which is taxable to the owners. Note: this is an oversimplification as it's oftentimes the case that vehicles are partially used for business instead of all or nothing. In fact, large items such as vehicles are typically depreciated so the full purchase price could not be deducted in a single year. If many of the purchases are depreciated items instead of deductions, then this could explain why it appears that the business expenses are being taxed. It's not a tax on the expense, but on the income that hasn't been reduced by expenses, since only a portion of the big ticket item can be treated as an expense in a single year. What can I do to make sure it won't happen? Who is the right person to report this to? (apparently, the police can't make sure that it won't be used for identity theft) You want to contact any one of the credit bureaus and put a fraud alert on your account.   Once you contact one, they automatically contact the other bureaus for you. As part of this, they should send you a credit report.  Review it carefully and note any items that are not yours.  You'll then need to dispute any items that are a result of this identity theft.   You may be required to file a police report regarding the stolen identity, but if you filed one for your stolen wallet, that may be sufficient.   If the person who stole your wallet wants to steal your identity, it may be months before it shows up on your credit report.   Make it a practice to regularly check your credit reports. How do I check at any given time whether my identity was stolen? Unfortunately, there is no easy way to check if your identity was stolen.  The most common way is to check your credit report, but that only checks things that are reported to the credit reporting bureaus.   If they use your information to start an account with a utility company at a rental house that typically won't go on your credit report until they are substantially delinquent.  If they use your information to check into a hospital, that information typically won't show up on your credit report until the hospital sends the bill to collections. I've had a case where the identity theft happened at Chase, but was never reported on my credit.   So my credit report was clear, but Chase disallowed me from banking with them because the identity thief had delinquent accounts with Chase that for whatever reason were not reported to the bureaus. How likely is it that it will be used in any form of identity theft? My gut feeling is that someone who snatches a wallet and immediately runs up the credit cards isn't looking to steal identities, but rather for a quick score.   I don't know if there are statistics that back up my hunch. The money was sent from my US bank to my father in India Your father can receive unlimited amount of money as GIFT from you. There is no tax implication on this transaction. Related question After 3 years, my father received a note from the income tax dept. asking him to pay income taxes. Possibly because the income does not match and there maybe high value transactions. This should be replied preferably with the help of CA. Now, the CA is asking him to pay tax in the money I transferred. Is that correct? This is incorrect. Please change the CA and get someone competent. If not, what should I or he do in this case? Get guidance from another CA. Your father can establish that this was convenience and show evidence of transfer from you [need bank statements from your bank and Indian bank]. Property registration payments receipts, etc. Or he can also show this as Gift. If required get a gift deed created. Since I have 10k in my account after down-payment, will I get a   good interest rate on the loan? When the bank considers your loan, they will see $70K. Regardless, they will want to see certain amount of savings that would allow you to continue paying your loan in case of an emergency, and $10K might not be enough. I was planning to put down 15%, but I have been told that I should buy   something called PMI to satisfy the rest 5% and if I take that my   interest will be more and sometimes, bank will not go for anybody who   pays less than 20%. Is that true? Yes. After downpayment + closing costs, how much money in the savings   accounts, is the bank looking for to say that I am a good buyer? Depends on the bank, my wild guess would be they're looking for several months' worth of loan payments (you should have ~6 months worth of savings for emergencies, regardless of loans). "You owe taxes to the state where you earned the income, and also to the state where you physically live. Most, maybe all, states have laws that let you claim credits for taxes paid to other states so that you're not paying double taxes by living in one state while working in another. Most states have deals with all their neighboring states so that you only have to file taxes in one. For example, I live in Michigan, and Michigan borders Ohio. Lots of people who live near the border live in one state but work in the other. So the two have a deal that anyone who lives in Michigan but works in Ohio just has to file a Michigan tax return and pay Michigan taxes, and anyone who lives in Ohio and works in Michigan just has to pay Ohio taxes. Oh, I should note that these adjacent state deals apply only to employment income, not business income. If you own a business in another state, you'll still have to file taxes in that state. You still should get tax credits in your residence state. In general the fact that you use a server in another state doesn't make you liable for taxes in that state. I understand that New York says that if you work from home and the company headquarters is in New York, you have to pay New York taxes. Maybe there are a few other states who do this. But just because a server is in their state? I've never heard of this. If I order business supplies that are shipped from a warehouse in Arizona, that doesn't make me liable for Arizona income taxes, etc.  You are legally a ""resident"" of the state where you actually live. If you have a home and live in it most of the time, then you are a resident of the state where that home is. A ""home"" doesn't have to be a house. It could be an apartment, an RV that you live in in a trailer park, a tent, etc. If you don't own any sort of fixed home and you travel around a lot, this could be tricky. You mentioned Oklahoma. Oklahoma defines ""resident"" as follows:  An Oklahoma resident is a person domiciled in this state for the entire tax year. “Domicile” is the place established as a person’s true, fixed, and permanent home. It is the place you intend to return whenever you are away (as on    vacation abroad, business assignment, educational leave or military assignment). A domicile, once established, remains until a new one is adopted. (https://www.ok.gov/tax/documents/511NRPkt-14.pdf) I'm not sure that that clears things up for you. You can't just pick a state with low taxes and claim that as your residence. No way is the state where you actually live going to accept that. If you are in an ambiguous situation, like you spend 6 months per year in state A and 6 months in state B and you have no fixed home in either -- maybe you stay at motels or live in your minivan -- you might get away with picking the state with the most favorable tax laws as your residence. But if you spend 7 months in state A and 5 months in state B, state A will almost surely claim you are a resident and owe them taxes. If you regularly wander the country, never spend more than a few days in any one place, and rarely come back to the same place twice, then you have a complicated situation and you probably need to talk to a tax lawyer." I'm also self employed. Your circumstances may be different, but my accountant told me there was no reason to pay more than 100% of last years' taxes. (Even if this years' earnings are higher.) So I divide last year by 4 and make the quarterlies. As an aside, I accidentally underpaid last year (mis-estimated), and the penalty was much smaller than I expected. I like how whether or not its okay to do *exactly* what the tax code says is determined by your presumed intent in following the tax code, and not whether or not you actually followed the tax code.   Besides, what reasonable person or business *doesn't* minimize their tax burden, in the same way they minimize *every* and *any* burden? From the 1099 instructions: File Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, for each person to whom you have paid during the year Your accounting method doesn't matter. You file 1099 for the year you paid the money.