A deferred capital gains tax similar to the real estate 1031 Exchange but for securities reinvestment?
Sale of a stock creates a capital gain. It can be offset with losses, up to $3000 more than the gains. It can be deferred when held within a retirement account.  When you gift appreciated stock, the basis follows. So when I gifted my daughter's trust shares, there was still tax due upon sale. The kiddy tax helped reduce but not eliminate it. And there was no quotes around ownership. The money is gone, her account is for college.  No 1031 exchange exists for stock.
You don't need to submit a K-1 form to anyone, but you will need to transcribe various entries on the K-1 form that you will receive onto the appropriate lines on your tax return.  Broadly speaking, assets received as a bequest from someone are not taxable income to you but any money that was received by your grandmother's estate between the time of death and the time of distribution of the assets (e.g. interest, mutual fund distributions paid in cash, etc) might be passed on to you in full instead of the estate paying income tax on this income and sending you only the remainder. If so, this other money would be taxable income to you.  The good news is that if the estate trust distributions include stock, your basis for the stock is the value as of the date of death (nitpickers: I am aware that the estate is allowed to pick a different date for the valuation but I am trying to keep it simple here).  That is, if the stock has appreciated, your grandmother never paid capital gains on those unrealized capital gains, and you don't have to pay tax on those capital gains either; your basis is the appreciated value and if and when you sell the stock, you pay tax only on the gain, if any, between the day that Grandma passed away and the day you sell the stock. Having lived in both places, I have to say you can find a higher income in the US for the same job and can live in a small town versus having to live in a big city in Canada to find decent salaries.  For similar sized cities, the cost of housing is significantly lower in the US than Canada.  That is your biggest factor in cost of living.  If you are thinking of NYC or San Francisco, there are no comparable size cities in Canada and you would probably be better off in Canada.   My tax preparer was amazed at how much I paid in Capital Gains taxes when I left Canada.  Maybe it is different now but I doubt it. The biggest free lunch in the US is a generous capital gains exemption when you sell your primary residence without any lifetime cap or cap on the number of times you can do it.  There are rules on how long you have to live in it before selling. For investment real estate, all expenses are deductible in addition to fictional depreciation so with a mortgage you can have positive cash flow and pay no income tax.  You can keep doing tax deferred exchanges into bigger and bigger rentals.  When you are close to retirement, you can exchange into your ultimate beach home, rent it out a few years, then convert to a primary residence. The real estate industry today is highly exploitative, you're right, but there are currently nothing stopping rents from rising. The major controls in place are are primarily supply constraints, which would lower prices if removed by allowing small, entrepreneurial developers and builders to create new housing more easily. There's also nothing to stop institutional investors from buying up all the housing right now, but those investors are generally not looking for high growth, they're looking for stable returns. Apartment buildings are viewed as similar to blue chip stock portfolios in that regard. Low growth, but also low risk.  The reason capitalism wouldn't lead to monopoly is that it takes work both to gain resources, and to retain them, and the most reliable way to retain them is to reinvest them in the economy. Investment permits new businesses to grow, and new industries to form. It's precisely because the economy isn't limited to a fixed size that wealth of one group doesn't require to poverty of others. New value creation is the core of the theory, and nearly every living person has at least some capital (their body and mind) to begin employing toward value creation.  I recommend reading Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson if you'd like to understand the theory behind why and how free market capitalism is supposed to work. You'll be taxed when you sell the house, but not before that (or if you do some other transaction that realizes the gain, talk to your real estate attorney or accountant for more details). A Home Equity line-of-credit is simply a secured loan: it's a loan, conditioned on if you fail to pay it back, they have a lien on your house (and may be able to force you to sell it to pay the loan back). (All for US.) Yes you (will) have a realized long-term capital gain, which is taxable. Long-term gains (including those distributed by a mutual fund or other RIC, and also 'qualified' dividends, both not relevant here) are taxed at lower rates than 'ordinary' income but are still bracketed almost (not quite) like ordinary income, not always 15%. Specifically if your ordinary taxable income (after deductions and exemptions, equivalent to line 43 minus LTCG/QD) 'ends' in the 25% to 33% brackets, your LTCG/QD income is taxed at 15% unless the total of ordinary+preferred reaches the top of those brackets, then any remainder at 20%. These brackets depend on your filing status and are adjusted yearly for inflation, for 2016 they are: * single 37,650 to 413,350 * married-joint or widow(er) 75,300 to 413,350 * head-of-household 50,400 to 441,000 (special) * married-separate 37,650 to 206,675 which I'd guess covers at least the middle three quintiles of the earning/taxpaying population.  OTOH if your ordinary income ends below the 25% bracket, your LTCG/QD income that 'fits' in the lower bracket(s) is taxed at 0% (not at all) and only the portion that would be in the ordinary 25%-and-up brackets is taxed at 15%. IF your ordinary taxable income this year was below those brackets, or you expect next year it will be (possibly due to status/exemption/deduction changes as well as income change), then if all else is equal you are better off realizing the stock gain in the year(s) where some (or more) of it fits in the 0% bracket. If you're over about $400k a similar calculation applies, but you can afford more reliable advice than potential dogs on the Internet. (update) Near dupe found: see also How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket?  Also, a warning on estimated payments: in general you are required to pay most of your income tax liability during the year (not wait until April 15); if you underpay by more than 10% or $1000 (whichever is larger) you usually owe a penalty, computed on Form 2210 whose name(?) is frequently and roundly cursed. For most people, whose income is (mostly) from a job, this is handled by payroll withholding which normally comes out close enough to your liability. If you have other income, like investments (as here) or self-employment or pension/retirement/disability/etc, you are supposed to either make estimated payments each 'quarter' (the IRS' quarters are shifted slightly from everyone else's), or increase your withholding, or a combination. For a large income 'lump' in December that wasn't planned in advance, it won't be practical to adjust withholding. However, if this is the only year increased, there is a safe harbor: if your withholding this year (2016) is enough to pay last year's tax (2015) -- which for most people it is, unless you got a pay cut this year, or a (filed) status change like marrying or having a child -- you get until next April 15 (or next business day -- in 2017 it is actually April 18) to pay the additional amount of this year's tax (2016) without underpayment penalty. However, if you split the gain so that both 2016 and 2017 have income and (thus) taxes higher than normal for you, you will need to make estimated payment(s) and/or increase withholding for 2017. PS: congratulations on your gain -- and on the patience to hold anything for 10 years! You can rehypo securities which are regulated by the SEC. No funding ladder with any counter party will Accept non-security assets (which loans btw aren't securities like bonds). We see the same in the broadly syndicated loan market.   TRS loan facilities are just now developing into more mature vehicles to the point where banks are structuring collateral upgrades through writing fully funded participations to SPV's  and borrowing treasuries from a counter party who has a lien against the SPV (oc'd of course) but that's a bespoke and uncommon solution. Most banks are still funding these TRS facilities with unsecured funds.   The repo market is ultimately the robust and tradional means of securing funding against loan assets. Middle market and broadly syndicated repo are most common but ABS desks will often times reverse repo while loans or asset backed loans in addition to their normal warehousing businesses. You are still selling one investment and buying another - the fact that they are managed by the same company should be irrelevant.  So yes, it would get the same tax treatment as if they were managed by different companies. "(I'm assuming USA tax code as this is untagged) As the comments above suggest there is no ""right"" answer or easy formula.  The main issue is that you likely got into business to make money and if you make money consistently you will pay taxes.  Reinvesting generally should be a business decision where the main concern is revenue growth and taxes are an important but secondary concern. Taxes can be complicated, but for a small LLC shouldn't be that bad.  I highly recommend that you take some time closely analyze your business and personal taxes for the previous year.  Once you understand the problem better, you can optimize around it.  If it is a big concern, some companies buy software so they can estimate their taxes periodically through the year and make better decisions."