Are tax deductions voluntary?
"I did a little research and found this article from 2006 by a Villanova law professor, titled ""No Thanks, Uncle Sam, You Can Keep Your Tax Break"".  The final paragraph of the article says: Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that a taxpayer is not required to claim a allowable deduction unless a statutory provision so requires, or a binding judicial precedent so specifies. It would be unwise, of course, to forego a deduction that the IRS considers mandatory such as those claimed by self-employed individuals with respect to their self-employment,    whether for purposes of the self-employment tax or the earned income tax credit. Until the statute is changed or some other binding authority is issued, there is no reason taxpayers who wish to forego deductions, such as the dependency exemption deduction, should hesitate in doing so. (The self-employment tax issues in the quote cited by CQM are explicitly discussed in the article as one of a few special kinds of deduction which are mandatory.) This is not a binding statement: it's not law or even official IRS policy.  You could never use it as a defense in the event that this professor turned out to be wrong and the IRS decided to go after you anyway.  However, it is a clear statement from a credible, qualified source." "There are many people who have deductions far above the standard deduction, but still don't itemize. That's their option even though it comes at a cost. It may be foolish, but it's not illegal.  If @littleadv citation is correct, the 'under penalty of perjury' type issue, what of those filers who file a Schedule A but purposely leave off their donations? I've seen many people discuss charity, and write that they do not want to benefit in any way from their donation, yet, still Schedule A their mortgage and property tax. Their returns are therefore fraudulent.  I am curious to find a situation in which the taxpayer benefits from such a purposeful oversight, or, better still, a cited case where they were charged with doing so. I've offered advice on filings return that wasn't ""truthful"". When you own a stock and cannot find cost basis, there are times that you might realize the basis is so low that just entering zero will cost you less than $100 in extra tax. You are not truthful, of course, but this kind of false statement isn't going to lead to any issue. If it gets noticed within an audit, no agent is going to give it more than a moment of time and perhaps suggest, ""you didn't even know the year it was bought?"" but there would be no consequence.  My answer is for personal returns, I'm sure for business, accuracy to the dollar is actually important." "What kind of ""deductions"" are you talking about? Many deductions, like the standard/itemized deductions, come after the AGI, and do not affect the AGI, so I don't see how this would make any difference. Maybe you are talking about deductions that come before the AGI? If you want to increase your AGI legitimately, here's a way: Every year, itemize deductions on your federal return, and over-withhold your state income tax (assuming your state has income tax) by a lot, and/or make voluntary extra payments to your state income tax. As a result, you will get a huge refund on your state taxes the following year. Then you will need to include this refund as income on line 10 of the federal return that year, which will be included in the AGI. (Of course, you will also be able to deduct a lot of state income tax paid every year in the federal itemized deductions, but those come after the AGI.)" "Legally: gods know. I would strongly recommend asking the Law asre of Stack Exchange to advise on that. Practically: What's the worst that happens? They audit, you say ""Yeah, I could probably have claimed these deductions but I didn't want to; is that a problem?"", they decide and either nothing happens or they issue you the unwanted refunnd. They aren't going to fine you for overpaying. Unless this would expose something criminal -- or you're a public figure and it would be embarassing -- this strikes me as falling firmly within the bounds of ""no harm, no foul""."
If I have a slave and I let him stop being a slave at any time as long as he pays me 500 dollars, is he a voluntary slave?  He's still here, right? He can leave at any time as long as he pays me. Oh, and I can change the conditions under which I *allow* him to leave at any time, unilaterally, without giving him any notice or allowing him to dissent. Totally voluntary, right? The intention of making the charitable contributions tax deductible is to provide an economic incentive to contribute to organizations which tend to improve the general welfare of the community. Deductibility impacts government revenue generation, but has positive impacts that probably offset that loss by encouraging more giving by folks subject to high income tax -- particularly small business owners.  Unless you own a home and have a mortgage you may not have enough deductions to get any financial benefit from charitable contributions. Charitable contributions are only deductible when your deductions exceed the standard deduction.  For most people, charitable contributions are a way to support something that you care about, and the tax benefits are a secondary benefit, or a way to enhance their own giving. "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)." If you itemize your deductions then the interest that you pay on your primary residence is tax deductible. Also realestate tax is also deductible. Both go on Schedule A. The car payment is not tax deductible.  You will want to be careful about claiming business deduction for home  or car. The IRS has very strict rules and if you have any personal use you can disqualify the deduction. For the car you often need to use the mileage reimbursement rates. If you use the car exclusively for work, then a lease may make more sense as you can expense the lease payment whereas with the car you need to follow the depreciation schedule.  If you are looking to claim business expense of car or home, it would be a very good idea to get professional tax advice to ensure that you do not run afoul of the IRS. No, it's not possible. Even if you had no deduction or credits, your federal tax on $16,604 would be: $9075 @ 10% = $907.50 +  $7529 @ 15% = $1129.35 = $2036.85 That assumes you are filing as single. There must be more to the story.  Typo in your income numbers?  Also, what do you mean by a self-employment tax deduction? Maybe update your question to include a breakdown of everything you entered? Edit: As noted in Loren's answer, it seems that it is indeed possible in at least one case (self-employment taxes). "To be deductible, a business expense must be both ordinary and necessary. An ordinary expense is one that is common and accepted in your trade or business. A necessary expense is one that is helpful and appropriate for your trade or business. An expense does not have to be indispensable to be considered necessary.  (IRS, Deducting Business Expenses) It seems to me you'd have a hard time convincing an auditor that this is the case.  Since business don't commonly own cars for the sole purpose of housing $25 computers, you'd have trouble with the ""ordinary"" test.  And since there are lots of other ways to house a computer other than a car, ""necessary"" seems problematic also." Yes. Here is the chart:  This will tell you if the IRA is deductible. Above these numbers, and you might be able to deposit to Roth, or to an IRA but not take a deduction. But investing into your own company is already a tax deductible event. Expenditures like Research &amp; Development, employee compensation, and acquiring new equipment are all things that reduce taxable income.  https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/05/20/third-cash-owned-5-us-companies/84640704/  &gt; Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Alphabet (GOOGL), Cisco Systems (CSCO) and Oracle (ORCL) are sitting on $504 billion, or 30%, of the $1.7 trillion in cash and cash equivalents held by U.S. non-financial companies in 2015, according to an analysis released Friday by ratings agency Moody's Investors Service.  That's even more cash concentration than in previous years, as these five companies held 27% of cash in 2014 and 25% in 2013. Apple alone is holding more cash and investments than eight of the 10 entire industry sectors.  1/3 of all dollars created by the US Federal Reserve banking system (physically minted or otherwise) is collectively held by 5 companies. Companies exist to accumulate wealth and will seek to avoid unnecessary expenditures, which includes taxes.  The corporate income tax rate is 35%. For individuals, the top income tax bracket (for every dollar of income above $400,000) is 39.6%.  I argue that dropping the top individual income tax bracket down to 34% will not materially affect these companies (paying 35% income tax) from continuing to just sit on a ludicrous sum of wealth.