Bank statements - should I retain hardcopies for tax or other official purposes (or keep digital scanned copies)?
"In the UK Directgov don't specify anything more than ""records"", which leads me to think that a digital copy might be acceptable. With regards to bank statements, individuals (i.e. not self-employed, or owning a business) need to keep them for between 12 and 15 months after your tax return, depending on when you filed it. Source: Record keeping (individuals and directors) - Directgov" I am in the United States. There is no need to keep the statements in any form forever. Once the bank gives you a 1099 stating how much interest you have earned, you don't need to keep them. If you only have them in electronic form, that is good enough for the IRS. When you do need to show a bank statement, such as when applying for a loan, the loan company will be keeping a copy. It doesn't matter if it was a scan from the original, from a printed PDF, or if you printed it from your archives. In the US they used send the original check back to the person who wrote it, so they could keep it for their records. Then many banks went to carbons, but if you paid extra they would send you the original. Now the bank that cashes the check scans the check and destroys the original. If you want a copy for your records it only exists as a scanned image. Digital records are fine, but record-keeping practices are important. Be consistent.
It's difficult to provide an exact answer as this will very much depend on the bank & the local regulatory scheme.  However as a business owner you should be able to provide incorporation docs, some proof of ownership of the company and last years' financial statements or tax returns, many banks would accept this as a proof of income for the purposes of granting credit. In general in most jurisdictions I can think of, a high downpayment will not remove the need to verify income as the bank needs to feel comfortable that you have the ability to pay the remaining 25% (e.g. how do they know you're not a serially unemployed lottery winner) and if the downpayment is quite large they may want some assurance that you got the money legally (e.g. how do they make sure you're not a drug dealer). So probably regardless of how large a downpayment most banks would probably want some additional proofs of income however what proofs are needed may be more flexible than just a salary stub. I suggest taking a look at what sort of documents you may have on hand that can serve to validate your revenue in some way and contacting a few banks directly to see what options they can provide and whether some custom-tailored arrangement can be made. "They are basically asking for the name of the legal entity that they should write on the check. You, as a person, are a legal entity, and so you can have them pay you directly, by name. This is in effect a ""sole proprietorship"" arrangement and it is the situation of most independent contractors; you're working for yourself, and you get all the money, but you also have all the responsibility. You can also set up a legal alias, or a ""Doing Business As"" (DBA) name. The only thing that changes versus using your own name is... well... that you aren't using your own name, to be honest. You pay some trivial fee for the paperwork to the county clerk or other office of record, and you're now not only John Doe, you're ""Zolani Enterprises"", and your business checks can be written out to that name and the bank (who will want a copy of the DBA paperwork to file when you set the name up as a payable entity on the account) will cash them for you. An LLC, since it was mentioned, is a ""Limited Liability Company"". It is a legal entity, incorporeal, that is your ""avatar"" in the business world. It, not you, is the entity that primarily faces anyone else in that world. You become, for legal purposes, an agent of that company, authorized to make decisions on its behalf. You can do all the same things, make all the same money, but if things go pear-shaped, the company is the one liable, not you. Sounds great, right? Well, there's a downside, and that's taxes and the increased complexity thereof. Depending on the exact structure of the company, the IRS will treat the LLC either as a corporation, a partnership, or as a ""disregarded entity"". Most one-man LLCs are typically ""disregarded"", meaning that for tax purposes, all the money the company makes is treated as if it were made by you as a sole proprietor, as in the above cases (and with the associated increased FICA and lack of tax deductions that an ""employee"" would get). Nothing can be ""retained"" by the company, because as far as the IRS is concerned it doesn't exist, so whether the money from the profits of the company actually made it into your personal checking account or not, it has to be reported by you on the Schedule C. You can elect, if you wish, to have the LLC treated as a corporation; this allows the corporation to retain earnings (and thus to ""own"" liquid assets like cash, as opposed to only fixed assets like land, cars etc). It also allows you to be an ""employee"" of your own company, and pay yourself a true ""salary"", with all the applicable tax rules including pre-tax healthcare, employer-paid FICA, etc. However, the downside here is that some money is subject to double taxation; any monies ""retained"" by the company, or paid out to members as ""dividends"", is ""profit"" of the company for which the company is taxed at the corporate rate. Then, the money from that dividend you receive from the company is taxed again at the capital gains rate on your own 1040 return. This also means that you have to file taxes twice; once for the corporation, once for you as the individual. You can't, of course, have it both ways with an LLC; you can't pay yourself a true ""salary"" and get the associated tax breaks, then receive leftover profits as a ""distribution"" and avoid double taxation. It takes multiple ""members"" (owners) to have the LLC treated like a partnership, and there are specific types of LLCs set up to handle investments, where some of what I've said above doesn't apply. I won't get into that because the question inferred a single-owner situation, but the tax rules in these additional situations are again different." "In June 2016 the American Institute of CPAs sent a letter to the IRS requesting guidance on this question.   Quoting from section 4 of this letter, which is available at https://www.aicpa.org/advocacy/tax/downloadabledocuments/aicpa-comment-letter-on-notice-2014-21-virtual-currency-6-10-16.pdf If the IRS believes any property transaction rules should apply differently to virtual currency than to other types of property, taxpayers will need additional guidance in order to properly distinguish the rules and regulations. Section 4, Q&A-1 of Notice 2014-21 states that “general tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency,” which is guidance that is generally helpful in determining the tax consequences of most virtual currency transactions. However, if there are particular factors that distinguish one virtual currency as like-kind to another virtual currency for section 1031 purposes, the IRS should clarify these details (e.g., allowing the treatment of virtual currency held for investment or business as like-kind to another virtual currency) in the form of published guidance. Similarly, taxpayers need specific guidance of special rules or statutory interpretations if the IRS determines that the installment method of section 453 is applied differently for virtual currency than for other types of property. So, at the very least, a peer-reviewed committee of CPAs finds like-kind treatment to have possible grounds for allowance.   I would disagree with calling this a ""loophole,"" however (edit: at least from the viewpoint of the taxpayer.)  At a base technological level, a virtual currency-to-virtual currency exchange consists of exchanging knowledge of one sequence of binary digits (private key) for another.  What could be more ""like-kind"" than this?" "I'm not sure there's a good reason to do a ""closing the books"" ceremony for personal finance accounting. (And you're not only wanting to do that, but have a fiscal year that's different from the calendar year? Yikes!) My understanding is that usually this process is done for businesses to be able to account for what their ""Retained Earnings"" and such are for investors and tax purposes; generally individuals wouldn't think of their finances in those terms. It's certainly not impossible, though. Gnucash, for example, implements a ""Closing Books"" feature, which is designed to create transactions for each Income and Expenses account into an end-of-year Equity Retained Earnings account. It doesn't do any sort of closing out of Assets or Liabilities, however. (And I'm not sure how that would make any sense, as you'd transfer it from your Asset to the End-of-year closing account, and then transfer it back as an Opening Balance for the next year?) If you want to keep each year completely separate, the page about Closing Books in the Gnucash Wiki mentions that one can create a separate Gnucash file per year by exporting the account tree from your existing file, then importing that tree and the balances into a new file. I expect that it makes it much more challenging to run reports across multiple years of data, though. While your question doesn't seem to be specific to Gnucash (I just mention it because it's the accounting tool I'm most familiar with), I'd expect that any accounting program would have similar functionality. I would, however, like to point out this section from the Gnucash manual: Note that closing the books in GnuCash is unnecessary. You do not need to zero out your income and expense accounts at the end of each financial period. GnuCash’s built-in reports automatically handle concepts like retained earnings between two different financial periods. In fact, closing the books reduces the usefulness of the standard reports because the reports don’t currently understand closing transactions. So from their point of view it simply looks like the net income or expense in each account for a given period was simply zero. And that's largely why I'm just not sure what your goals are. If you want to look at your transactions for a certain time, to ""just focus on the range of years I'm interested in for any given purpose"" as you say, then just go ahead and run the report you care about with those years as the dates. The idea of ""closing books"" comes from a time when you'd want to take your pile of paper ledgers and go put them in storage once you didn't need to refer to them regularly. Computers now have no challenges storing ""every account from the beginning of time"" at all, and you can filter out that data to focus on whatever you're looking for easily. If you don't want to look at the old data, just don't include them in your reports. I'm pretty sure that's the ""better way to keep the books manageable""." "Assuming you file state tax returns, you shouldn't buy Basic. Ever. Your choice is probably between the ""Premier"" version and the ""Business and Home"" version. Price difference is insignificant (I have a comparison on my blog, including short descriptions as to who might find each version useful the most). The prices have gone down significantly, since when I wrote the article, its cheaper now." "The P11D is a record of the total benefits you've received in a tax year that haven't been taxed in another way, a bit like the P60 is a record of the total pay and tax you've paid in a tax year. Note that travel for business purposes shouldn't be taxable, and if that's what's being reported on the P11D you may need to make a claim for tax relief to HMRC to avoid having to pay the tax. I'm not sure whether it's normal for such expenses to be reported there. HMRC will normally collect that tax by adjusting your tax code after the P11D is issued, so that more tax is taken off your future income. So you don't need to do anything, as it'll be handled automatically. As to how you know it's accurate, if you have any doubts you'd need to contact your former employer and ask them to confirm the details. In general you ought to know what benefits you actually received so should at least be able to figure out if the number is plausible. If your ""travel"" was a flight to the USA, then probably it was. If it was a bus ticket, less so :-) If you fill in a tax return, you'll also have to report the amount there which will increase the tax you owe/reduce your refund. You won't be charged twice even if your tax code also changes, as the tax return accounts for the total amount of tax you've already paid. For travel benefits, the exact treatment in relation to tax/P11Ds is summarised here." "The simplest answer to why you can't see it in your online statement is a design/business decision that was made, most probably originally to make online statements differ as little as possible from old fashioned monthly printed statements; the old printed statements never showed holds either. Some banks and card services actually do show these transactions online, but in my experience these are the rare exceptions - though with business/commercial accounts I saw this more, but it was still rare. This is also partly due to banks fearing lots of annoying phone calls from customers and problems with merchants, as people react to ""hey, renting that car didn't cost $500!"" and don't realize that the hold is often higher than the transaction amount and will be justified in a few days (or weeks...), etc - so please don't dispute the charges just yet. Behind the scenes, I've had bankers explain it to me thusly (the practice has bitten me before and it bothered me a lot, so I've talked to quite a few bankers about this): There are two kinds of holds: ""soft holds"" and ""hard holds"". In a soft hold, a merchant basically asks the bank, ""Hey, is there at least $75 in this account?"" The bank responds, and then has it's own individually set policy per account type as to how to treat that hold. Sometimes they reserve no money whatsoever - you are free to spend that money right out and rack up NSF fees to your heart's content. Yet some policies are to treat this identically to a hard hold and keep the money locked down until released. The hard hold is treated very much like an actual expenditure transaction, in that the money is locked and shown as no longer available to you. This varies by bank - some banks use an ""Account Balance"" and an ""Available Balance"", and some have done away with these dual terms and leave it up to you to determine what your balance is and what's ""available"" (or you have to call them). The key difference in the hard hold and a real expenditure is, technically, the money is still in your bank account; your bank has merely ""reserved"" it, earmarking it for a specific purchase (and gently promising the merchant they can have their money later), but the biggest difference is there is a time-limit. If a merchant does not process a completion to the transaction to claim the money, your bank will lift the hold after a period of time (I've seen 7-30 days as typical in the US, again varying by institution) returning your money to your balance that is available for purchasing and withdrawal. In every case, any vaguely decent banking institution allows you to call them, speak to some bank employee, and they can look up your account and inform you about the different sort of holds that are on your account that are not pending/completed purchase transactions. From a strictly cynical (perhaps rightly jaded) point of view, yes this is also used as a method to extort absurdly high fees especially from customers who keep a low balance in their account. I have had more than one bank charge NSF fees based on available balances that were due to holds made by gas pumps, for instance, even though my actual ""money in my account"" never went below $0 (the holds were for amounts larger than the actual transaction). And yes, the banks usually would waive those fees if you bothered to get someone on the phone or in person and made yourself a nuisance to the right person for long enough, but they made you work for it. But I digress.... The reality is that there are lots of back and forth and middle-men in transactions like this, and most banks try to hide as much of this from you the client as possible, partly because its a huge confusing hassle and its part of why you are paying a bank to handle this nonsense for you to start with.  And, as with all institutions, rules and policies become easily adjusted to maximize revenues, and if you don't keep sizable liquid minimum balances (100% of the time, all year long) they target you for fees.  To avoid this without having fat wads of extra cash in those accounts, is use an entirely disconnected credit card for reservations ONLY - especially when you are traveling and will be making rentals and booking hotels. Just tell them you wish to pay with a different card when you are done, and most merchants can do this without hassle. Since it's a credit card with monthly billing you can often end up with no balance, no waiting around for a month for payments to clear, and no bank fees! It isn't 100%, but now I never - if I can possibly avoid it - use my debit/bank card to ""reserve"" or ""rent"" anything, ever." Hate to burst your bubble OP, but the average banker has ZERO control over corporate's relationship with equifax. It's silly to suggest that demanding those answers from your bottom-of-the-corporate-ladder teller or financial advisor is going to warrant you any real answers. Source: am banker.