What is approximate tax deduction for this scenario?
House rent allowance:7500 House Rent can be tax free to the extent [less of] Medical allowance : 800 Can be tax free, if you provide medical bills. Conveyance Allowance : 1250 Is tax free.  Apart from this, if you invest in any of the tax saving instruments, i.e. Specified Fixed Deposits, NSC, PPF, EPF, Tution Fees, ELSS, Home Loan Principal etc, you can get upto Rs 150,000 deductions. Additional Rs 50,000 if you invest into NPS. If you have a home loan, upto Rs 200,000 in interest can be deducted. So essentially if you invest rightly you need not pay any tax on the current salary, apart from the Rs 200 professional tax deducted.
Your capital gain is about $40K, which (assuming your total income is under $250K) is taxed at 15% long term capital gains rate. Additional depreciation recapture of approximately $5K is taxed at 25%. So this gives us rough estimate of $7250 tax. This is Federal tax, AZ rates are somewhere between 2% and 4%, so you'll be looking at some $1.6K additional tax to AZ. If you have accumulated rental losses or other expenses, it will lower the total amount of your gain (and, accordingly, the taxes). This is all very rough estimates, and you shouldn't rely on this but verify on your own or with a professional. I suggest using professional services because while being costly, they will probably save you more in taxes than you'll have to pay them because of the knowledge of what exactly of your expenses can be deducted and how to calculate the cost basis correctly. (edit from JoeT - the home exclusion requires occupancy for 2 of prior 5 years. For the OP, the prorated $125k exclusion 'might' cover the gain, it depends when the increase in value occurred, if the gain was during the time rented, it's taxable, I believe.) Do you have a regular job, where you work for somebody else and they pay you a salary? If so, they should be deducting estimated taxes from your paychecks and sending them in to the government. How much they deduct depends on your salary and what you put down on your W-4. Assuming you filled that out accurately, they will withhold an amount that should closely match the taxes you would owe if you took the standard deduction, have no income besides this job, and no unusual deductions. If that's the case, come next April 15 you will probably get a small refund. If you own a small business or are an independent contractor, then you have to estimate the taxes you will owe and make quarterly payments. If you're worried that the amount they're withholding doesn't sound right, then as GradeEhBacon says, get a copy of last year's tax forms (or this year's if they're out by now) -- paper or electronic -- fill them out by estimating what your total income will be for the year, etc, and see what the tax comes out to be. If these are children that may be employed, in a few years, it may well be worth walking them through some basics of the deductions around employment, some basic taxes, uses of banks, and give them enough of a basis in how the economy of the world works.  For example, if you get a job and get paid $10/hour, that may sound good but how much do various things eat at that so your take-home pay may be much lower?  While this does presume that the kids will get jobs somewhere along the way and have to deal with this, it is worth making this part of the education system on some level rather than shocking them otherwise. Rather than focusing on calculations, I'd be more tempted to consider various scenarios like how do you use a bank, what makes insurance worth having(Life, health, car, and any others may be worth teaching on some level), and how does the government and taxes fit into things. While I may be swinging more for the practical, it is worth considering if these kids will be away in college or university in a few years, how will they handle being away from the parents that may supply the money to meet all the financial needs? "Not to state the obvious, but whenever an investment is being made, the ""nuts and bolts"" is your return on investment.  Analyzing the rate of return on an investment is the primary factor in any decision.  Ideally, once the actual mechanics of investment and side ""benefits"" are factored out, the goal is to be able to analyze the pure financial return. Usually the biggest problem faced in analyzing various investments is comparing the Present Value of an investment to a series of payments that may be made or received in the future.  When considering the purchase of a large equity, for example, you might be looking at what series of payments are required to purchase the asset.  You can also reverse this and ask, ""What amount of money is equivalent to this series of payments?"" Ultimately, the Present Value of an Annuity is the way to make these comparisons equal.   Fundamentally, the Present Value of an annuity is an amount of money that should, in theory, be equivalent to a series of payments.  There is, for example, technically no difference between $1064.94 today and $100 a month for a year, at an interest rate of 1% per month.  Grant you, most people would be happier with the money now, but that is what interest does - it compensates you for waiting on your money.   You can fire up a spreadsheet and calculate the Present Value as long as you have the monthly payment, interest rate, and number of periods.  Alternatively, you can calculate any one of those missing four variables - and the key is usually to understand what that rate would be in order to compare the investments. Finally, the taxable implication is really just an adjustment to the rate of return. Imagine the following three scenarios: (Obviously the rates are fictional - the goal is to show they are the same). Scenarios 1 & 2 are really just two sides of the same coin.  Using the Future Value formula in Excel = FV(0.5%, 12, -100), you get $1233.56.  In scenario 1, you would have $1233.56 in your bank account.  In scenario 2, your bank would have $1233.56 from you, and you would have $100 less debt per month.  They are equivalent transactions.   Scenario 3 is really just a variation on scenario 2, localized to the United States.  Because the interest is tax deductible, however, the rate of 6% isn't really accurate.  Assuming you had a 25% tax bracket, you'd actually be getting back one quarter of your interest.  Put another way, 7.5% mortgage interest costs you as much as 6% credit card debt. This is how you compare apples and organges - just turn everything into an annuity or a lump sum, using Present Value calculations.   Finally, quick rule of thumb - if you owe taxes in both Canada and the US, your Canadian taxes are probably higher than your American ones.  As such, any tax incentives will be concomitantly higher.  If you only can only use Canadian tax incentives, then look to those incentives, other things being equal." I would say it's all relative. Take the following two scenarios: If you were facing these options, would you chose #2 just because you pay a lower tax rate, even though you make less money? These numbers are of course fictional, but the point I'm trying to make is that everyone will seek the method that allows them to make the most money. If they have to pay a higher tax rate, so be it. One other thought: daytraders will have higher expenses, which are deductible. According to HMRC's manual BIM42105, you can't deduct expenses of this kind when calculating your profits for corporation tax: No deduction is allowed for expenditure not incurred wholly and exclusively for trade purposes So at the least, the company will have to pay corporation tax on this donation at some point, assuming it ever makes any profits. There's also the risk that HMRC would say that what is really happening is that you are making a personal donation to this person and the company is giving you income to allow you to do it. In that case, you'd be liable to income tax and employees national insurance, and the company liable to employers national insurance. It should then be deductible from corporation tax, though. "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)." Here's an answer received elsewhere. Yes, it looks like you have a pretty good understanding the concept   and the process. Your wife's income will be so low - why? If she is a full-time student in any of those months, you may   attribute $250 x 2 children worth of income for each of those months. Incidentally, even if you do end up paying taxes on the extra $3000,   you won't be paying the employee's share of Social Security and   Medicare (7.65%) or state disability on those funds. So you still end   up saving some tax money. No doubt, there's no need to remind you to be sure that you submit all   the valid receipts to the administrator in time to get reimbursed.  And a must-have disclaimer:   Please be advised that, based on current IRS rules and standards, any advice contained herein is not intended to be used, nor can it be used, for the avoidance of any tax penalty that the IRS may assess related to this matter. Any information contained in this email, whether viewed or subsequently printed, cannot be relied upon as qualified tax and accounting advice. ... Any information contained in this email does not fall under the guidelines of IRS Circular 230.