Cost is (maybe) part of basis for two assets
For accounting purposes, consider the costs of acquisition as part of the cost of the asset as opposed to expensing.  This will be important to consider if you need to amortise the asset for reporting or tax purposes. Dr. Land $250,000 Dr. Building: $250,000 Cr. Cash $500,000 The acquisition of the land from previous owners. And Dr. Land $12,500 Dr. Building $12,500 Cr. Cash $25,000 Fees paid to auctioneer who helped acquire the land. The basis for dividing the cost should be done at appraised prices.  These appraised prices will appear in the first entry and should help you along.
You really have asked two different questions here: I'm interested in putting away some money for my family Then I urge you to read up on investing. Improving your knowledge in investing is an investment that will very likely pay off in the long-term - this can't be answered here in full length, pointers to where to start are asset allocation and low-cost index funds. Read serious books, read stackexchange posts, and try avoid the Wall Street marketing machine. Also, before considering any long term investments, build an emergency fund (e.g. 6 months worth of your expenses) in case you need some liquid money (loss of job etc.), and also helps you sleep better at night. What things are important to consider before making this kind of investment? Mainly the risk (other answers already elaborate on the details).  Investing in a single stock is quite risky, even more so when your income also depends on that company. Framed another way: which percentage of your portfolio should you put into a single stock? (which has been answered in this post). If after considering all things you think it's a good deal, take the offer, but don't put a too great percentage of you overall savings into it, limit it to say 10% (maybe even less). Fahad, in finance we make a distinction between investments that tend to grow in value and assets that hold value.  Investments that grow in value are generally related to investing in well-thought out businesses.  Investments can be done in retirement accounts through stocks and bonds but also owning part of a business directly.  Good investments make more and more money off the money you put in. Common examples of assets include gold and other non-productive property like real-estate you don't rent or cars.  You can even have some assets in your retirement account as many would argue government bonds behave like assets.  All of these things tend to (more or less) go up in value as the cost of everything goes up in value, but don't tend to make you any excess money in the long run. There is certainly a place for both investments and assets.  Especially as a young person it is good to lean toward investments as you likely have a lot of time for the money to grow as you get older.  As RonJohn suggests, in the United States this is fairly easy as retirement accounts are common there is a long history of stable financial law even in crises.  Pakistan's institutions are fairly stable and improving but still assets and investments of all types can be riskier. So, I recommend taking your father's advice... partially. Having some assets are good in riskier situations, but good investments are generally the way to grow comfortably wealthy.  A good mix of the two is the way to grow wealthy slowly while protecting yourself from risk.  You, your father and your neighbors know you local situation better than I, who has only visited a number of Pakistan's neighboring countries, so I can't really give more detailed advice but hopefully this gets you started. "The IRS has been particularly vague about the ""substantially identical"" investment part of the wash rule.  Many brokers, Schwab for instance, say that only identical CUSIPs (exactly the same ETF) matter for the wash rule in their internal calculations, but warn that the IRS might consider two ETFs over the same index to be substantially identical.  In your case, the broker has chosen to call these a wash despite even having different underlying indices.  Talking to the broker is the first step as they will report it to the IRS.  Though technically you have the final say in your taxes about the cost basis,  discussing this with the IRS could be rather painful. First though it is probably worth checking with your broker about exactly what happened.  There are other wash sale triggers that frequently trip people up that may have been in play here." "I am going to keep things very simple and explain the common-sense reason why the accountant is right: Also, my sister in law owns a small restaurant, where they claim their accountant informed them of the same thing, where a portion of their business purchases had to be counted as taxable personal income. In this case, they said their actual income for the year (through their paychecks) was around 40-50K, but because of this detail, their taxable income came out to be around 180K, causing them to owe a huge amount of tax (30K ish). Consider them and a similarly situated couple that didn't make these purchases. Your sister in law is better off in that she has the benefit of these purchases (increasing the value of her business and her expected future income), but she's worse off because she got less pay. Presumably, she thought this was a fair trade, otherwise she wouldn't have made those purchases. So why should she pay any less in taxes? There's no reason making fair trades should reduce anyone's tax burden. Now, as the items she purchased lose value, that will be a business loss called ""depreciation"". That will be deductible. But the purchases themselves are not, and the income that generated the money to make those purchases is taxable. Generally speaking, business gains are taxable, regardless of what you do with the money (whether you pay yourself, invest it, leave it in the business, or whatever). Generally speaking, only business losses or expenses are deductible. A purchase is an even exchange of income for valuable property -- even exchanges are not deductions because the gain of the thing purchased already fairly compensates you for the cost. You don't specify the exact tax status of the business, but there are really only two types of possibilities. It can be separately taxed as a corporation or it can be treated essentially as if it didn't exist. In the former case, corporate income tax would be due on the revenue that was used to pay for the purchases. There would be no personal income tax due. But it's very unlikely this situation applies as it means all profits taken out of the business are taxed twice and so small businesses are rarely organized this way. In the latter case, which is almost certainly the one that applies, business income is treated as self-employment income. In this case, the income that paid for the purchases is taxable, self-employment income. Since a purchase is not a deductible expense, there is no deduction to offset this income. So, again, the key points are: How much she paid herself doesn't matter. Business income is taxable regardless of what you do with it. When a business pays an expense, it has a loss that is deductible against profits. But when a business makes a purchase, it has neither a gain nor a loss. If a restaurant buys a new stove, it trades some money for a stove, presumably a fair trade. It has had no profit and no loss, so this transaction has no immediate effect on the taxes. (There are some exceptions, but presumably the accountant determined that those don't apply.) When the property of a business loses value, that is usually a deductible loss. So over time, a newly-purchased stove will lose value. That is a loss that is deductible. The important thing to understand is that as far as the IRS is concerned, whether you pay yourself the money or not doesn't matter, business income is taxable and only business losses or expenses are deductible. Investments or purchases of capital assets are neither losses nor expenses. There are ways you can opt to have the business taxed separately so only what you pay yourself shows up on your personal taxes. But unless the business is losing money or needs to hold large profits against future expenses, this is generally a worse deal because money you take out of the business is taxed twice -- once as business income and again as personal income. Update: Does the business eventually, over the course of the depreciation schedule, end up getting all of the original $2,000 tax burden back? Possibly. Ultimately, the entire cost of the item is deductible. That won't necessarily translate into getting the taxes back. But that's really not the right way to think about it. The tax burden was on the income earned. Upon immediate replacement, hypothetically with the exact same model, same cost, same 'value', isn't it correct that the ""value"" of the business only went up by the amount the original item had depreciated? Yes. If you dispose of or sell a capital asset, you will have a gain or loss based on the difference between your remaining basis in the asset and whatever you got for the asset. Wouldn't the tax burden then only be $400? Approximately, yes. The disposal of the original asset would cause a loss of the difference between your remaining basis in the asset and what you got for it (which might be zero). The new asset would then begin depreciating. You are making things a bit more difficult to understand though by focusing on the amount of taxes due rather than the amount of taxable gain or loss you have. They don't always correlate directly (because tax rates can vary)." I am not a tax professional, only an investment professional, so please take the following with a grain of salt and simply as informational guidance, not a personal recommendation or solicitation to buy/sell any security or as personal tax or investment advice. As Ross mentioned, you need to consult a tax advisor for a final answer concerning your friend's personal circumstances. In my experience advising hundreds of clients (and working directly with their tax advisors) the cost basis is used to calculate tax gain or loss on ordinary investments in the US. It appears to me that the Edward Jones description is correct. This has also been the case for me personally in the US with a variety of securities--stocks, options, futures, bonds, mutual funds, and exchange traded funds.  From the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/uac/about-form-1099b Form 1099-B, Proceeds From Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions A broker or barter exchange must file this form for each person: Edward Jones should be able to produce a 1099b documenting the gains/losses of any investments. If the 1099b document is confusing, they might have a gain/loss report that more clearly delineates proceeds, capital returns, dividends, and other items related to the purchase and sale of securities. I would take each of these items and any others and consider how you would count it as an expense in the other direction. If you have an account for parking expenses or general transportation funds, credit that account for a refund on your parking. If you have an account for expenses on technology purchases, you would credit that account if you sell a piece of equipment as you replace it with an upgrade. If you lost money (perhaps in a jacket) how would you account for the cash that is lost? Whatever account would would subtract from put a credit for cash found. The key point is from the penultimate sentence in your second paragraph: for which you have already paid taxes When you receive a dividend or realise a capital gain, you get taxed on that then, and you shouldn't have to pay taxes on it again in future. So the cost basis gets adjusted to reflect that. Inflation will damage the value of those cash reserves. This will harm the company's value. (Other factors may or may not be harmed. or helped.) Borrowing costs may be related to inflation, but they're not directly tied. Inflation happens, in fact, when it's easy to borrow money and more money gets created than new economic activity. (Also, if a competitor really needs to raise money, they can also issue new equity. It's not all borrowing.)