How do owners in a partnership earn income?
The partnership agrees to pay each of you salaries and/or bonuses, typically based on the net profit brought in. You do have a legal document setting out the rules for this partnership, right? If so, the exact answer should be in there. If you don't or it isn't, you need a lawyer yesterday. "If you business is incorporated, it's up to the two of you how to do it. Typically, you will have the company write cheques (or make transfers, whatever) to each of the humans: If you want to say that each of you gets a salary of 80% of the revenue you bring in, and then tweak things with bonuses, you can. If one of you is contributing more to marketing and awareness and less to revenue, then you may prefer to pay you each the same even though the revenue you bring are different. It's up to you - it's quite literally your business. When you're not incorporated, then for tax purposes you split the income and the expenses according to your ownership share. If that doesn't seem fair to you, then a partnership is probably not as useful to you as being incorporated. In general, it's better to be incorporated once you're past any initial phase in which the business is losing money for tax purposes (acquiring depreciable assets) and the partners have taxable income from elsewhere (day jobs, or at least income from the earlier part of the year before starting the business.) I would recommend that the ""partnership"" phase of the business be very short. Get incorporated and get a shareholder agreement."
How is the business organized? If as a General Partnership or LLC that reports as a partnership, you will be getting distributed to you each year your % ownership of the earnings or loss. But note, this is a paperwork transfer on the form K-1, which must then carryover to your tax return, it does not require the transfer of cash to you. If organized as an S-Corp, you should be holding shares of the company that you may sell back to the S-Corp, generally as outlined in the original articles of incorporation. The annual 'dividend' (earnings remaining after all expenses are paid) should be distributed to you in proportion to the shares you hold. If a C-Corp and there is only one class of stock that you also hold a percentage of, the only 'profits' that must be distributed proportionally to you are declared dividends by the board of directors. Most family run business are loosely formed with not much attention paid to the details of partnership agreements or articles of incorporation, and so don't handle family ownership disputes very well. From my experience, trying to find an amicable settlement is the best...and least expensive....approach to separation from the business. But if this can't be done or there is a sizable value to the business, you may have to get your own legal counsel. "The bank ""credit's"" your account for money coming into it. In double entry accounting, you always have a debit and a credit to balance the accounts. As an Example: for $500 that the bank credited to your checking account, you would post a debit to Cash and a Credit to Income Earned. The accounting equation is: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity                             $500   =                    $500 Cash is the ""Asset"" side of the equation, Income is part of Owner's Equity, and so is the Credit side... to make the equation balanced." Pool their money into my own brokerage account and simply split the gains/losses proportional to the amount of money that we've each   contributed to the account. I'm wary of this approach due to the tax   implications and perhaps other legal issues so I'd appreciate   community insight here. You're right to be wary. You might run into gift tax issues, as well as income tax liability and appropriation of earnings. Not a good idea at all. Don't do this. Have them set up their own brokerage account and have them give me the   login credentials and I manage the investments for them. This is   obviously the best approach from a tracking and tax perspective, but   harder for me to manage; to be honest I'm already spending more time   than I want to managing my own investments, so option 1 really appeals   to me if the drawbacks aren't prohibitive. That would also require you to be a licensed financial adviser, at least to the best of my understanding. Otherwise there's a lot of issues with potential liability (if you make investments that lose money - you might be required to repay the losses). You should do this only with a proper legal and tax advice - from an attorney and/or CPA/EA licensed in your state. There are proper ways to do this (limited partnership or LLC, for example), but you have to cover your ass-ets with proper operating agreements in place that have to be reviewed by legal counsel of each of the members/partners, "It might be best to step back and look at the core information first.  You're evaluating an LLC vs a Corporation (both corporate entities).  Both have one or more members, and both are seen similarly (emphasis on SIMILAR here, they're not all the same) to the IRS.  Specifically, LLC's can opt for a pass-through tax system, basically seen by the IRS the same way an S-Corp is. Put another way, you can be taxed as a corporate entity, or it's P/L statements can ""flow through"" to your personal taxes.  When you opt for a flow-through, the business files and you get a separate schedule to tie into your taxes.  You should also look at filing a business expense schedule (Schedule C) on your taxes to claim legitimate business expenses (good reference point here). While there are several differences (see this, and this, and this) between these entities, the best determination on which structure is best for you is usually if you have full time employ while you're running the business.  S corps limit shares, shareholders and some deductions, but taxes are only paid by the shareholders.  C corps have employees, no restrictions on types or number of stock, and no restrictions on the number of shareholders.  However, this means you would become an employee of your business (you have to draw monies from somewhere) and would be subject to paying taxes on your income, both as an individual, and as a business (employment taxes such as Social Security, Medicare, etc). From the broad view of the IRS, in most cases an LLC and a Corp are the same type of entity (tax wise).  In fact, most of the differences between LLCs and Corps occur in how Profits/losses are distributed between members (LLCs are arbitrary to a point, and Corps base this on shares). Back to your question IMHO, you should opt for an LLC.  This allows you to work out a partnership with your co-worker, and allows you to disburse funds in a more flexible manner.  From Wikipedia : A limited liability company with multiple members that elects to be taxed as partnership may specially allocate the members' distributive share of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit via the company operating agreement on a basis other than the ownership percentage of each member so long as the rules contained in Treasury Regulation (26 CFR) 1.704-1 are met. S corporations may not specially allocate profits, losses and other tax items under US tax law. Hope this helps, please do let me know if you have further questions.  As always, this is not legal or tax advice, just what I've learned in setting several LLCs and Corporate structures up over the years. EDIT: As far as your formulas go, the tax rate will be based upon your personal income, for any pass through entity.  This means that the same monies earned from and LLC or an S-corp, with the same expenses and the same pass-through options will be taxed the same. More reading: LLC and the law (Google Group)" "You should contact the company and the broker about the ownership. Do you remember ever selling your position? When you look back at your tax returns/1099-B forms - can you identify the sale? It should have been reported to you, and you should have reported it to the IRS. If not - then you're probably still the owner. As to K-1 - the income reported doesn't have to be distributed to you. Partnership is a pass-through entity, and cannot ""accumulate"" earnings for tax purposes, everything is deemed distributed. If, however, it is not actually distributed - you're still taxed on the income, but it is added to your basis in the partnership and you get the tax ""back"" when you sell your position. However, you pay income tax on the income based on the kind of the income, and on the sale - at capital gains rates. So the amounts added to your position will reduce your capital gains tax, but may be taxed at ordinary rates. Get a professional advice on the issue and what to do next, talk to a EA/CPA licensed in New York." "The few individuals who create the corporations that take advantage of the sharing economy, making it broadly accepted and utilized, make billions.  Those who actually do the work of ""sharing"", not so much, unless they are able to do so out of excess of funds rather than through borrowing.  Those who utilize the sharing economy save some money because they aren't making the investments in infrastructure (cars, housing, whatever) and so aren't paying interest or expending use value.  They can invest that money in sharing economy corporations, gaining value.  So the losers in the sharing economy are those who borrowing in order to ""share.""" Playing devil's advocate here:  Let's say you pull this off as a hired manager with no/little salary but with a share in profits. You really put in a lot of work and get the place going. What is going to stop them to kick you out after a season and take it over again themselves benefitting from your effort? Note: I am in the UK. I don't know specifically about australia but I expect the general principles will be much the same everywhere. What banks want is to be reasonablly confident that you have a steady income stream that will continue to pay the mortgate until it completes.  In general employed are fairly easy to assess. Most employed people will have a steady basic pay that increases through their career. Payslips will usually seperate-out basic pay, overtime and bonuses. There is little opertunity to cook the books. The self-employed are harder to assess. Income can be bursty and there are far more opertunities for cooking the books to make it look like you are earning more than you really are. So banks are likely to be far more careful about lending to the self-employed, they will likely want to see multiple years of buisness records so that any bursts, whether natural due to the ebbs and flows of buisness or deliberatly created to cook the books average out and they can see the overall pattern. A large deposit will help because it reduces the risk to the bank in the event of a default. Similarly not being anywhere near your limit of affordability will help.