Tax and financial implications of sharing my apartment with my partner
"I am not a lawyer nor a tax accountant, so if such chimes in here I'll gladly defer. But my understanding is:  If you're romantically involved and living together you're considered a ""household"" and thus your finances are deemed shared for tax purposes. Any money your partner gives you toward paying the bills is not considered ""rent"" but ""her contribution to household expenses"". (I don't know the genders but I'll call your partner ""her"" for convenience.) This is not income and is not taxed. On the off chance that the IRS actually investigated your arrangement, don't call any money she gives you ""rent"": call it ""her contribution to living expenses"". If you were two (or more) random people sharing a condo purely for economic reasons, i.e. you are not a family in any sense but each of you would have trouble affording a place on your own, it's common for all the room mates to share the rent or mortgage, utilities, etc, but for one person to collect all the money and write one check to the landlord, etc. Tax law does not see this as the person who writes the check collecting rent from the others, it's just a book-keeping convenience, and so there is no taxable transaction. (Of course the landlord owes taxes on the rental income, but that's not your problem.) In that case it likely would be different if one person outright owned the place and really was charging the others rent. But then he could claim deductions for all the expenses of maintaining it, including depreciation, so if it really was a case of room mates sharing expenses, the taxable income would likely be just about zero anyway. So short answer: If you really are a ""couple"", there are no taxable transactions here. If the IRS should actually question it, don't refer to it as ""collecting rent"" or any other words that imply this is a business arrangement. Describe it as a couple sharing expenses. (People sometimes have created tax problems for themselves by their choice of words in an audit.) But the chance that you would ever be audited over something like this is probably remote. I suppose that if at some point you break up, but you continue to live together for financial reasons (or whatever reasons), that could transform this into a business relationship and that would change my answer."
Having recently been given basically the same question it hinges on a few major factors. What does your apartment provide (e.g. heating, internet/etc)? My (personal) example. With my numbers (which includes taxes, insurance estimates, minor repairs to home as needed), also ignoring all costs that are shared (e.g. food, internet, car insurance, etc), I am only making a difference around $450 per month. In 5 years I would save ($450 * 12 * 5) $27,000. However I also have to pay costs for buying the house (transfer deed, laywer fees, home inspections, etc) which in my case cost around $3000. Not to mention selling a home has some costs (I think around $1500+ in my area) as well as the realitor taking a cut (which I also think is around 2.5% = $7,225. So we can probably estimate you would lose around $15000 at most, buying and selling the home when all final costs come in. Which means in my case I would at most be saving around $12,000... probably less (assuming I did not miss anything). So basically 12,000/(12*5) = $200 per month saved. TLDR: I don't think its worthwhile, because there is a lot of risks involved, and houses tend to require a lot of extra work/money. With apartments you have little/no risk, and can freely leave at the end. "This is several questions wrapped together: How can I diplomatically see the company's financial information? How strong a claim does a stockholder or warrantholder have to see the company's financials? What information do I need to know about the company financials before deciding to buy in? I'll start with the easier second question (which is quasi implicit).  Stockholders typically have inspection rights.  For example, Delaware General Corporate Law § 220 gives stockholders the right to inspect and copy company financial information, subject to certain restrictions. Check the laws and corporate code of your company's state of incorporation to find the specific inspection right.  If it is an LLC or partnership, then the operating agreement usually controls and there may be no inspection rights.  If you have no corporate stock, then of course you have no statutory inspection rights.  My (admittedly incomplete) understanding is that warrantholders generally have no inspection rights unless somehow contracted for.  So if you vest as a corporate stockholder, it'll be your right to see the financials—which may make even a small purchase valuable to you as a continuing employee with the right to see the financials.  Until then, this is probably a courtesy and not their obligation. The first question is not easy to answer, except to say that it's variable and highly personal for small companies.  Some people interpret it as prying or accusatory, the implication being that the founders are either hiding something or that you need to examine really closely the mouth of their beautiful gift horse.  Other people may be much cooler about the question, understanding that small companies are risky and you're being methodical.  And in some smaller companies, they may believe giving you the expenses could make office life awkward. If you approach it professionally, directly, and briefly (do not over-explain yourself) with the responsible accountant or HR person (if any), then I imagine it should not be a problem for them to give some information.  Conversely, you may feel comfortable enough to review a high-level summary sheet with a founder, or to find some other way of tactfully reviewing the right information. In any case, I would keep the request vague, simple, and direct, and see what information they show you.  If your request is too specific, then you risk pushing them to show information A, which they refuse to do, but a vague request would've prompted them to show you information B.  A too-specific request might get you information X when a vague request could have garnered XYZ.  Vague requests are also less aggressive and may raise fewer objections. The third question is difficult to say.  My personal understanding is some perspective of how venture capitalists look at the investment opportunity (you didn't say how new this startup is or what series/stage they are on, so I'll try to stay vague). The actual financials are less relevant for startups than they are for other investments because the situation will definitely change.  Most venture capital firms like to look at the burn rate or amount of cash spent, usually at a monthly rate.  A high burn rate relative to infusions of cash suggests the company is growing rapidly but may have a risk of toppling (i.e. failing before exit).  Burn rate can change drastically during the early life of the startup.  Of course burn rate needs the context of revenues and reserves (and latest valuation is helpful as a benchmark, but you may be able to calculate that from the restricted share offer made to you).  High burn rate might not be bad, if the company is booming along towards a successful exit. You might also want to look at some sort of business plan or info sheet, rather than financials alone.  You want to gauge the size of the market (most startups like to claim 9- or 10-figure markets, so even a few percentage points of market share will hit revenue into the 8-figures).  You'll also have to have a sense for the business plan and model and whether it's a good investment or a ridiculous rehash (""it's Twitter for dogs meets Match.com for Russian Orthodox singles!"").  In other words, appraise it like an investor or VC and figure out whether it's a prospect for decent return.  Typical things like competition, customer acquisition costs, manufacturing costs are relevant depending on the type of business activity. Of course, I wouldn't ignore psychology (note that economists and finance people don't generally condone the following sort of emotional thinking).  If you don't invest in the company and it goes big, you'll kick yourself.  If it goes really big, other people will either assume you are rich or feel sad for you if you say you didn't get rich.  If you invest but lose money, it may not be so painful as not investing and losing out the opportunity.  So if you consider the emotional aspect of personal finance, it may be wise to invest at least a little, and hedge against ""woulda-shoulda"" syndrome.  That's more like emotional advice than hard-nosed financial advice. So much of the answer really depends on your particular circumstances.  Obviously you have other considerations like whether you can afford the investment, which will be on you to decide.  And of course, the § 83(b) election is almost always recommended in these situations (which seems to be what you are saying) to convert ordinary income into capital gain.  You may also need cash to pay any up-front taxes on the § 83(b) equity, depending on your circumstances." Plus, there's the feeling my parents want me to have a house in case   we can't save the one we (my mom and brothers) all live in. First, you should not be forced to buy a home because your parents are telling you to. You should have your own life. Period. That said, while you are doing well from a salary perspective, your savings are somewhat borderline for a purchase if you ask me. Meaning your savings would essentially be the full downpayment & then your whole paycheck basically becomes payments on the mortgage. Not a good situation to be in. My advice would be that if you can invest in something smaller—like a small apartment for yourself—that is what you should purchase.  That would allow you to invest in something but not be completely financially drained by the prospect. And then in a few years, you can sell that apartment & move onto something else.  Perhaps a house at that stage? But right now, a full home purchase would be a fairly massive risk. "Why go for an average two bedroom?  I lived for a few years in a low-priced 4 bedroom apartment that I shared with 3 other people.  I used the money I saved from living below my means to put a down payment on a duplex, which I used to ""live for free.""" First, you need to see if you actually qualify as a dependent under IRS rules; in short: While there may be exceptions to the cohabitation rule, I am not sure what those could be.  The takeaway is that if your parent is wishing to claim you as a dependent, they must be responsible for supporting the majority of your living expenses (e.g. food and shelter). If this is the case, then the next question is to look at how the impact of the exemptions play out.  In your situation, I would guess that your mother is correct:  your taxable income is likely to be so low that if you do not take an exemption for yourself, you probably would still have zero or minimal tax liability; but if you mother claims you as a dependent, she will be able to take a deduction. In the case of your grants and loans, the loans should not be taxable income since these need to be repaid (presumably, with future earnings).  Federal grants may be taxable--basically, the portion of the grant that is used solely for paying educational expenses toward a specific degree (tuition and books) is non-taxable, but the remainder may be subject to tax. As for tax credits, you would need to see how much you would get and how they would apply to you.  The bottom line is, there are too many variables to say for certain what the best approach would be, so both your and your mother's returns must be prepared under each scenario (you as her dependent, versus you claiming a personal exemption). "I think you may have a significant misunderstanding here.  You have been renting your property out for two years, now.  There is no special ""roommate"" clause in the tax code; roommates are renters, and the rent they pay is rental income.  (If they were roommates in a property you both rented from a third party, that would be different.) See publication 527, chapter 4 for more details on the subject (search on ""Renting Part of Property"").  You should be: You may also consider ""Not renting for profit"" section, which may be closer to what you're actually thinking - of changing from ""Renting not for profit"" to ""Renting for profit"".  Not rented for profit means you can report on your 1040 as opposed to filing Schedule E, but it does mean you have to actually not make a profit (and remember, some of the money that goes to paying the mortgage is not deductible on this side of things since it's your property and you'll get that money back, presumably, when you sell it). If that is what you're asking about, it sounds like it's just a matter of money.  Are you going to start making money?  Or, are you going to start making enough significant upgrades/etc. to justify the tax deduction?  You should consider the actual, specific numbers carefully, probably with the help of a CPA who is familiar with this sort of situation, and then make the decision that gives you the best outcome (keeping in mind that there may be long-term impacts of switching from not-for-profit to for-profit rental treatment)." I know one piece of information that can help you (in a macabe sort of way) - from what my wife has told me, if your partner dies, you are not responsible for paying for their debts, especially student loans. I expect the same thing for credit cards - if someone were to happen to charge $2,000 on their credit card and get hit by a bus, the credit card company can cajole and plead for you to pay for it, but you have no legal requirement to do so.  Unfortunately I do not have as much information about as if you spouse is living. "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."