When filing taxes in Canada, in what cases does box 39 on the T4 get reported as half of box 38?
Here's the best explanation I found relating to why your T4 box 39 might not have an amount filled in, even when box 38 has one: Department of Finance – Explanatory Notes Relating to the Income Tax Act [...]. It's a long document, but here's the part I believe relevant, with my emphasis: Employee Stock Options ITA 110(1)   [...]   Paragraph 110(1)(d) is amended to include a requirement that the   employee [...] exercise the employee’s rights under the stock   option agreement and acquire the securities underlying the agreement   in order for the deduction in computing taxable income to be   available [...] ensures that   only one deduction is available in respect of an employment benefit. In other words, if employee stock option rights are surrendered to an   employer for cash or an in-kind payment, then (subject to new   subsections 110(1.1) and (1.2)) the employer may deduct the payment   but the employee cannot claim the stock option deduction. Conversely,   where an employer issues securities pursuant to an employee’s exercise   of stock options, the employer can not deduct an amount in respect of   the issuance, but the employee may be eligible to claim a deduction   under paragraph 110(1)(d). Did you receive real shares based on your participation in the ESPP, or did you get a cash payment for the net value of shares you would have been issued under the plan? From what I can tell, if you opted for a cash payment (or if your plan only allows for such), then the part I emphasized comes into play. Essentially, if conditions were such that your employer could claim a deduction on their corporate income tax return for the compensation paid to you as part of the plan, then you are not also able to claim a similar deduction on your personal income tax return. The money received in that manner is effectively taxed in your hands the same as any bonus employment income would be; i.e. it isn't afforded tax treatment equivalent to capital gains income. Your employer and/or ESPP administrator are best able to confirm the conditions which led to no amount in your box 39, but at least based on above you can see there are legitimate cases where box 38 would have an amount while box 39 doesn't. "Apparently box 39 does not receive half of box 38 if ""The price of the share or unit is less than its fair market value when the agreement was made."" - the last point in paragraph 110(1)(d): *http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/bnfts/fnncl/scrty/stckpt03-eng.html#dspst The employee can claim a deduction under paragraph 110(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act if all of the following conditions are met:" Assuming you purchased shares that were granted at a discount under the ESPP the 50% exemption would not apply. It's pretty unusual to see a US parent company ESPP qualify for the 110(1)(d) exemption, as most US plans provide for a discount
"Plusprinters.com is offering Custom Archive Boxes with following Description.  1. Custom Archive Boxes is a great solution for different things at one place. 2. Custom Archive Boxes is available by Plusprinters.com in very cheap prices. 3. Custom Archive Boxes is provided with No Die and Plate Charges 4. Any Custom Archive Box can be made With Custom Size and Style 5. Our team consists of experienced Designers and we are going to fulfill your printing requirements With Free Design Support. 6. We are offering your Printing With High quality offset printing. 7. Providing Free Worldwide Shipping. 8. We are going to fulfill our clients requirement with Quick Turnaround. 9. We are providing free of Cost Lamination on which Lamination is necessary part of printing. 10.  Your participation in our company  is appreciated.You are aware you are on /r/business, right? Are you aware of how much Walmart pays in taxes? Are you aware that they currently pay more than most other mass retailers? Are you aware of how low Walmart's margins are? A small increase in expenses in a very low margin industry can be devastating. Walmart exists to make a profit, the point of businesses.   I live in western Illinois, and for low skill jobs, Walmart is actually one of the best places to work. Especially the warehouse workers. They pay better than the low end factory work, better than every mom and pop around here, a lot better than Dollar General, and are paying what is in this market a livable wage. Maybe not for a single person trying to support a family of 4 or have a lot of luxuries, but it is livable.&gt; You have the same problem with soybeans (Geraldes Castanheira, 2013), it's a problem with production that affects all agriculture.  You aren't getting it. Animals don't grow out the ground like plants do. You need to grow plants and then feed them to the animals to grow. The very first sentence in the soy article you sent me is The increase in soybean production as a source of protein and oil is being stimulated by the growing demand for livestock feed..."". You cannot win an efficiency fight in this, in the same way you cannot win an argument saying it is more efficient to create wine than it is to create grapes.   &gt; The point is that we can double the earth population without running out of food, and then we can add another 40% in the US by simply not throwing away the food, then we can optimize land use, and not all land is suitable for growing crops so we get more food by using it for meat.  Arguing to continue proven damaging behaviours because we can ""afford it"" is trying to rationalize illogical behaviour, its like saying I can smoke because I'm still young and then when I'm older I can increase my healthy food intake and exercise to offset it.    &gt; An optimized scenario includes meat as not all land is suitable to farming, and you have seafood and wildlife.  An optimized scenario is purely plant based. That land you speak of that is not suitable for farming - it may provide physical space to house the animals, but where is the food the animals need to grow coming from? Don't even get started into ocean depletion and what we've done to that resource. And why move on to wildlife if we have no requirements for meat in the first place?   &gt; At this point being vegan is more like being religious.  This is actually an intriguing statement. From my experience its actually the opposite. I grew up in a religious environment, blindly believed and thought nothing of it until my teenage years when I started to question it and realized it made no sense. Reflecting back, you wonder how you were ever so naive. That is the power (and danger) of being surrounded by people who are all raised the same way and who all act blindly out of custom and tradition. You feel comfortable believing it, because everyone else does, you get positive reinforcement from the group when you defend it, because people want to feel they are right and do not want to confront what it may mean to be wrong.   My change in diet resulted from a similar experience, I'd been raised in a family where a meal wasn't complete unless it had meat in it. I was told in school and by my doctor that I needed milk for strong bones, meat for muscles, and fish for my brain. I'd heard of vegans, thought of them like a cult, or circus freaks because thats what I'd heard. I went to vegetarian restaurant one day with a friend and started a conversation with a vegan family there, they were vibrant and clearly incredibly healthy, they were logical and intelligent, they had 3 kids who had never touched an animal product and in that moment my lifelong belief system started to shatter. Went home and started doing research on living without eating animal products. It became very clear very quickly that it was business, just like religion, I'd been systematically taught to think a certain way, and as long as I kept thinking that way - it was good for the respective businesses." "Welcome to the 21st century, the New Order. Forget all that legal mumbo jumbo you may have read back in law school in the 1960s about commercial code. Its all gone now. Now we have Check 21 and the Patriot Act !!! Basically what this means is that because some Arab fanatics burned down the World Trade Center, the US government and its allied civilian banking company henchmen now have total control and dictatorship over ""your"" money, which is no longer really money, but more like a ""credit"" to your account with THEM which they can do with what they want. Here are some of the many consequences of the two aforementioned acts: (1) You can no longer sue a bank for mishandling your money (2) All your banking transaction information is the joint property of the bank, its ""affiliates"" and the US Treasury (3) You can no longer conduct private monetary transactions with other people using a bank as your agent; you can only request that a bank execute an unsecured transaction on your behalf and the bank has total control over that transaction and the terms on which occurs; you have no say over these terms and you cannot sue a bank over any financial tort on you for any reason. (4) All banks are required to spy on you, report any ""suspicious"" actions on your part, develop and run special software to detect these ""suspicious actions"", and send their employees to government-run educational courses where they are taught to spy on customers, how to report suspicious customers and how to seize money and safe deposit boxes from customers when the government orders them to do so. (5) All banks are required to positively identify everyone who has a bank account or safe deposit box and report all their accounts to the government. (6) No transactions can be done anonymously. All parties to every banking transaction must be identified and recorded. So, from the above it should be clear to (if you are a lawyer) why no endorsement is present. That is because your check is not a negotiable instrument anymore, it is merely a request to the bank to transfer funds to the Treasury. The Treasury does not need to ""endorse"" anything. In fact, legally speaking, the Treasury could simply order your bank to empty your account into theirs, and they actually do this all the time to people they are ""investigating"" for supposed crimes. You don't need to endorse checks you receive either because, as I said above, the check is no longer a negotiable instrument. Banks still have people do it, but it is just a pro forma habit from the old days. Since you can't sue the bank, the endorsement is pretty meaningless because it cannot be challenged in court anyway. You could probably just write ""X"" there and they would deposit it." Based on these dates in your question: Going back over my records, I was able to recall the following: Maryland realized recently that on the 2009 Federal 1040 Form you stated that on December 31 2009 you liven in Maryland. They are wondering where the state tax form is. DC, MD and VA due to reciprocity collect income tax based on where you live not where you work. So when you moved in August 2009 and again in August 2010 you needed to file new state versions of the W4.  The fact you did or didn't submit to your employer a correct state W-4 is not directly related, because you would owe the tax regardless. The W-4 just makes sure that something close to the correct amounts are withheld and sent to the appropriate state capital. I seem to remember something about not having to pay Maryland state   taxes since I not only lived in the state for less than 6 months but   also did not work in the state. The reciprocity between DC, MD and VA says that Maryland gets the money because that is where you lived. The last time I had to do a part year the law was that they would forgive a half a month. In other words if you move in late December or early January you could ignore that small time period and avoid having to file in two states. In some cases people argue that some short term moves were never meant to be permanent. You might be able to claim that except the fact that your 2009 federal tax form you most likely claimed you lived in Maryland.  The next issue is time and money. If Maryland says you  owe them money for that time period, and if they still have the ability to force you to pay it; This is where the issue of correct state W-4 comes in.  If the money during the period you lived in Maryland was sent to Virginia, you should have had that money refunded by Richmond in the spring of 2010. But if there was no W-4 filed with your employer that would mean that Maryland didn't get any money for 2009. If you didn't tell Richmond you moved in 2009 they may not have refunded everything because they thought you lived there all year. Because of the time that has passed it may be too late to fix your Virginia filing, so they may not refund you excess payment to them. Maryland is interested in calculating how much you should have paid them in 2009. They are only looking at what you told the feds you made, and they may be assuming that you lived there the whole year. But until you file correctly that have no ability to calculate what you really owe. You need professional advice. You need to know what they can and can't collect. You also need to know what you can and can't get back from Richmond. And since it also may impact your filings for 2010 you will want to get that resolved at the same time. She filed for 0 withholdings in her W4, so my (unprofessional) guess   was that she'd be owed money, and therefore the IRS wouldn't care much   if she didn't file her taxes.† Maybe, but doesn't she want that money back? Is she at as much risk as any other individual of being audited and   penalized to the same degree if she skips filing her taxes? Audited and penalized are not the same. She's at the same risk of being audited, and even slightly higher since the IRS got reports of her wages, but didn't get the matching report from her. They may want to ask why. But it doesn't mean she's going to be penalized for anything. Being audited doesn't mean you did something wrong. Or does the IRS tend to overlook such individuals. The IRS might want to overlook because they're the ones owning money. She cannot get a refund without filing a tax return. She'd file her taxes today if she could, but the worry is that time's   running out Filing an extension is free and it postpones the deadline to file till OCTOBER! How do I account for this in the bookkeeping? Here is an example below:  This is how you would accurately depict contributions made by an owner for a business. If you would want to remove money from your company, or pay yourself back, this would be called withdrawals. It would be the inverse of the first journal entry with cash on the credit side and withdrawals on the debited side (as it is an expense).  You and your business are not the same thing. You are two different entities. This is why you are taxed as two different entities. When you (the owner) make contributions, it is considered to be the cash of the business. From here you will make these expenses against the business and not yourself.  Good luck, "It doesn't generally matter, and I'm not sure if it is in fact in use by the IRS other than for general statistics (like ""this year 20% of MFJ returns were with one spouse being a 'homemaker'""). They may be able to try and match the occupation and the general levels and types of income, but for self-employed there's a more precise and reliable field on Schedule C and for employees they don't really need to do this since everything is reported on W2 anyway. So I don't think they even bother or give a lot of value to such a metric. So yes, I'm joining the non-authoritative ""doesn't matter"" crowd." Most of the time, your tax only reduces by the current marginal rate - meaning you would only reduce your tax by 28% to 25% depending on which part of the bracket you're in. However, in the area around 100k, there are cases where reductions will have more of a marginal effect than that.  You'll never reduce it more than 100%, but you can reduce it by 35-40% despite being in the 25% bracket. That is because of certain deductions and credits which phase out beginning around 80k-120k; things like the IRA deduction, the Child Tax Credit, Childcare Tax Credit, and similar.  Since many of them phase out in this range, additional dollars cost you your marginal rate (25%) plus the percentage of the credits or deductions which phase out here, which might bring you up another 10% or so. It is perfectly legitimate to adjust your 1099-B income by broker's fees.  Publication 17 (p 116) specifically instructs taxpayers to adjust their Schedule D reporting by broker's fees: Form 1099-B transactions.   If you sold property, such as stocks, bonds, or certain commodities, through a broker, you should receive Form 1099-B or substitute statement from the broker. Use the Form 1099-B or the substitute statement to complete Form 8949. If you sold a covered security in 2013, your broker should send you a Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) that shows your basis. This will help you complete Form 8949. Generally, a covered security is a security you acquired after 2010. Report the gross proceeds shown in box 2a of Form 1099-B as the sales price in column (d) of either Part I or Part II of Form 8949, whichever applies. However, if the broker advises you, in box 2a of Form 1099-B, that gross proceeds (sales price) less commissions and option premiums were reported to the IRS, enter that net sales price in column (d) of either Part I or Part II of Form 8949, whichever applies. Include in column (g) any expense of sale, such as broker's fees, commissions, state and local transfer taxes, and option premiums, unless you reported the net sales price in column (d). If you include an expense of sale in column (g), enter “E” in column (f). You can rely on your own records and judgment, if you feel comfortable doing so.  Brokers often make incomplete tax reporting.  This may have been simpler from their perspective if the broker fees were variable, or integrated, or unknown for a number of clients party to a transaction.  If a taxpayer has documentation of the expenses that justify an adjustment, then it's perfectly appropriate to include that in the calculations. It is not necessary to report the discrepancy, and it may increase scrutiny to include a written addendum.  The Schedule D, Form 8949, and Form 1099-B will probably together adequately explain the source of the deduction.