If I go to a seminar held overseas, may I claim my flights on my tax return?
You can deduct this if the main purpose of the trip is to attend the seminar.  Travel expenses relating to the attendance at conferences, seminars and other work-related events are deductible to the extent that they relate to your income-producing activities. You will need to apportion your travel expenses where you undertake both work-related and private activities. Travel costs to and from the location of the work-related event will only be deductible where the primary purpose of the travel was to attend the event. Accommodation, food and other incidental costs must be apportioned between work-related and private activities taking into account the types of activities that you did on the day you incurred the cost. You might like to consider in advance what you would tell them if they questioned this - for instance you might say (if they are true): I think you can. I went to Mexico for business and the company paid for it, so if you are self employed you should be able to expense it. "Disclaimer: My answer is based on US tax law, but I assume Australian situation would be similar. The IRS would not be likely to believe your statement that ""I wouldn't have gone to the country if it wasn't for the conference.""  A two-week vacation, with a two-day conference in there, certainly looks like you threw in the conference in order to deduct vacation expenses.  At the very least, you would need a good reason why this conference is necessary to your business. If you can give that reason, it would then depend on the specifics of Australian law.  The vacation is clearly not just incidental to the trip. The registration for the conference is always claimable as a business expense."
"One can generalize on Traditional vs Roth flavors of accounts, I suggest Roth for 15% money and going pretax to avoid 25% tax.  If the student loan is much over 4%, it may make sense to put it right after emergency fund.  For emergency fund priority - I'm assuming EF really requires 2 phases, the $2500 broken transmission/root canal bill, and the lose your job, or need a new roof level bills. I'm in favor of doing what let's you sleep well. I'm also quick to point out that if you owe $2500 at 18%, yet have $2500 in your emergency fund, you're really throwing away $450 in interest each year. There's an ongoing debate of ""credit card as emergency fund."" No, I don't claim that your cards should be considered an emergency fund, per se, but I would prioritize knocking off the 18% debt as a high priority. Once that crazy interest debt is gone, fund the ER, and find a balance for savings and the next level ER, the 6-9mo of expenses one. One can choose to fund a Roth IRA, but keep the asset out of retirement calculations. It's simply an emergency account returning tax free interest, and if never used, it eventually is retirement money. A Roth permits withdrawal of deposited funds with no tax or penalty, just tracking it each year. This actually rubs some people the wrong way as it sounds like tapping your retirement account for emergencies. For my purpose, it's a tax free emergency fund. Not retirement, unless and until you are saving so much in the 401(k) you need more tax favored retirement money. I wrote an article some time ago, the Roth Emergency Fund which went into a bit more detail.  Last - keep in mind, this is my opinion. I can intelligently argue my case, but at some point, it's up to the individual to do what feels right. Paying 18% debt off a bit slower, say 4 years instead of 3, in favor of funding the matched 401(k), to me, you run the numbers, watch the 401(k) balance grow by 2X your pretax deposits, and see that in year 3, your retirement account is jump-started and far, far more than your remaining 18% cards. Those who feel the opposite and wish to be debt free first are going to do what they want. And the truth is, if this lets you sleep better at night, I'm in favor of it." "Ditto @GradeEhBacon, but let me add a couple of comments: But more relevantly: GradeEhBacon mentioned transaction costs. Yes. Many tax shelters require setting up accounts, doing paperwork, etc. Often you have to get a lawyer or accountant to do this right. If the tax shelter could save you $1 million a year in taxes, it makes sense to pay a lawyer $10,000 to set it up right. If it could save you $100 a year in taxes, paying $10,000 to set it up would be foolish. In some cases the tax savings would be so small that it wouldn't be worth the investment of spending $20 on a FedEx package to ship the paperwork. Inconvenience. Arguably this is a special case of transaction costs: the cost of your time. Suppose I knew that a certain tax shelter would save me $100 a year in taxes, but it would take me 20 hours a year to do the paperwork or whatever to manage it. I probably wouldn't bother, because my free time is worth more than $5 an hour to me. If the payoff was bigger or if I was poorer, I might be willing. Complexity. Perhaps a special case of 3. If the rules to manage the tax shelter are complicated, it may not be worth the trouble. You have to spend a bunch of time, and if you do it wrong, you may get audited and slapped with fines and penalties. Even if you do it right, a shelter might increase your chance of being audited, and thus create uncertainty and anxiety. I've never intentionally cheated on my taxes, but every year when I do my taxes I worry, What if I make an honest mistake but the government decides that it's attempted fraud and nails me to the wall? Qualification. Again, as others have noted, tax shelters aren't generally, ""if you fill out this form and check box (d) you get 50% off on your taxes"". The shelters exist because the government decided that it would be unfair to impose taxes in this particular situation, or that giving a tax break encourages investment, or some other worthy goal. (Sometimes that worthy goal is ""pay off my campaign contributors"", but that's another subject.) The rules may have unintended loopholes, but any truly gaping ones tend to get plugged. So if, say, they say that you get a special tax break for investing in medical research, you can't just declare that your cigarette and whiskey purchases are medical research and claim the tax break. Or you talked about off-shore tax havens. The idea here is that the US government cannot tax income earned in another country and that has never even entered the US. If you make $10 in France and deposit it in a French bank account and spend it in France, the US can't tax that. So American companies sometimes set up bank accounts outside the US to hold income earned outside the US, so they don't have to bring it into the US and pay the high US tax rate. (US corporate taxes are now the highest of any industrialized country.) You could, I suppose, open an account in the Caymans and deposit the income you earned from your US job there. But if the money was earned in the US, working at a factory or office in the US,  by a person living in the US, the IRS is not going to accept that this is foreign income." Uh, yeah, it's all good because... I'm the consumer. My role is to pay for and receive a product or service I've deemed worth my dollar. Where in this are you confused? I'm not chief of Sharia morality police for corporate officers, I'm a guy going to the airport. And if United has the best flight to get me where I'm going I'll take that plane, too. I'm about getting the best product or service for the money spent, not trying to start a VC firm with no ROI by propping up businesses that don't offer what I want. Should I go slap a hundo down at the farmers market, too, and walk away without any food just because I like their business practices even though it's 15 miles out of my way compared to my grocery store across the street?   People get so up in arms about corporate operations now that instant data transfer allows you to become an alleged expert in a company's internal operations mere moments after a story breaks. The beauty of the market is I get to spend my dollar where I want to and you get to spend yours where you want to. If you don't like it, I hear North Korea is nice this time of year. 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. You would report it as business income on Schedule C.  You may be able to take deductions against that income as well (home office, your computer, an android device, any advertising or promotional expenses, etc.) but you'll want to consult an accountant about that. Generally you can only take those kinds of deductions if you use the space or equipment exclusively for business use (not likely if it's just a hobby).  The IRS is pretty picky about that stuff. "Some of the 45,000 might be taxable. The question is how was the stipend determined. Was it based on the days away? The mile driven? The cities you worked in? The IRS has guidelines regarding what is taxable in  IRS Pub 15 Per diem or other fixed allowance.  You may reimburse your employees by travel days, miles, or some other   fixed allowance under the applicable revenue procedure. In these   cases, your employee is considered to have accounted to you if your   reimbursement doesn't exceed rates established by the Federal   Government. The 2015 standard mileage rate for auto expenses was 57.5   cents per mile. The rate for 2016 is 54 cents per mile. The government per diem rates for meals and lodging in the continental   United States can be found by visiting the U.S. General Services   Administration website at www.GSA.gov and entering ""per diem rates"" in   the search box. Other than the amount of these expenses, your   employees' business expenses must be substantiated (for example, the   business purpose of the travel or the number of business miles   driven). For information on substantiation methods, see Pub. 463. If the per diem or allowance paid exceeds the amounts substantiated,   you must report the excess amount as wages. This excess amount is   subject to income tax with-holding and payment of social security,   Medicare, and FUTA taxes. Show the amount equal to the substantiated   amount (for example, the nontaxable portion) in box 12 of Form W-2   using code “L""" You will pay taxes in both states!!! Where you bought the ticket as soon as you claim it.  and your residence state at the end of the year! Its called state Income Tax. Yes, that is correct. Note, when there is a tax treaty between Canada and the other country -- [which is pretty much anywhere you have active business](http://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/in_force--eng.asp) -- the tax credits are equal to the income received, making it tax free. Here is a better explanation:  &gt; The greatest advantage of having a foreign affiliate in the international business setting is  to repatriate foreign profits back to Canada tax free under certain conditions, for example,  if a foreign affiliate carries on an active business in a designated treaty country (i.e. a  country with which Canada has a tax treaty). The after-tax profit is included in a pool  called “exempt surplus”. If the repatriation of profit in the form of dividend was paid out  of the “exempt surplus” pool to a Canadian corporate shareholder, such dividend is  included in its income and the same amount is allowed to be deducted in computing its  taxable income. In other words, the dividend is not subject to Canadian tax if received by  a Canadian corporate shareholder.   [Source, p3](http://www.canadataxplan.com/test/canadataxplan/files/Book%20-%20English_summary_12-22-2008.pdf)  Edit... here from the NRC site:  &gt; Treaty Countries: **Active business income earned in a treaty country is classified as “exempt surplus.”** The exempt surplus of an FA also includes inter-affiliate dividends received out of the exempt surplus of other foreign affiliates, the exempt portion (25%) of all capital gains, and certain taxable capital gains. **Dividends paid out of the exempt surplus of an FA can be received free of additional taxes in Canada**, since the profits out of which they are paid are considered to have borne a rate of tax in the treaty country comparable to that of Canada.  [Source](http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mining-materials/taxation/8880) see the section on Subsidiary Income. This is the reason BK is moving to Canada. [Also here is a very interesting deck on corporate tax minimization in latin america by the Canadian mining industry.](http://miningtaxcanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/TOR01-5160395-v1-RMLF_Cartagena_Slides.pdf)