Being a 1099 for a company I part-own?
"The contract he wants me to sign states I'll receive my monthly   stipend (if that is the right word) as a 1099 contractor. The right word is guaranteed payment, which is what ""salary"" is called when a partner is working for a partnership she's a partner in. Which is exactly the case in your situation. 1099 is not the right form to report this, the partnership (LLC in your case) should be using the Schedule K-1 for that. I suggest you talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser (EA/CPA) who are licensed in your State, before you sign anything."
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. Careful.  I would personally need a LOT more than $5 more per hour to go from W-2 employment to 1099 employment.  It boils down to two reasons: (1) employers pay a huge amount of taxes on behalf of their employees, and (2) you would have to pay all of your own withholding up front. Your current proposal from them doesn't account for that. There are also risks that you face as a 1099.  On the first item, your employer currently pays 6.2% of your Social Security tax. You pay the other 6.2%. If you go to 1099 status, you will be self-employed as an independent contractor and have to pay the full 12.4% out of your increased 1099 wages.  On the second item, your employer also does your withholding out of your paychecks based on what you tell them on a form W-4. If you're disciplined enough to pay this out yourself in estimated taxes every time you get a paycheck, great. Many people aren't and just see a much bigger paycheck with no taxes out of it, and end up with a large tax bill at the end of the year.  Overall, there are some other considerations like healthcare and other benefits. These will not be available to you as a 1099 employee. You can also be terminated spontaneously, unless you have a specific contract length with the company.  As I see it, not including any benefits you would receive, you're looking at LESS money in your pocket at $50/hr as a contractor than at your $48/hr. Your pay net social security deductions is: $48 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 99,840 * .938 = 93,649.92. As a 1099 @ $50/hr you would net $50 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 104,000 * .876 = 91,104.  Then there are the rest of taxes, etc to figure out your real take-home pay.  I'm not a tax advisor, but I would be very careful to get the whole picture figured out before jumping. I would ask for a lot more with the added risk you would take as an independent, too. "There are certain allowable reasons to withdraw money from a 401K.  The desire to free your money from a ""bad"" plan is not one of them.   A rollover is a special type of withdrawal that is only available after one leaves their current employer.  So as long as you stay with your current company, you cannot rollover.  [Exception: if you are over age  59.5] One option is to talk to HR, see if they can get a expansion of offerings.  You might have some suggestions for mutual funds that you would like to see.  The smaller the company the more likely you will have success here.  That being said, there is some research to support having few choices.  Too many choices intimidates people. It's quite popular to have ""target funds""  That is funds that target a certain retirement year.  Being that I will be 50 in 2016, I should invest in either a 2030 or 2035 fund.  These are a collection of funds that rebalances the investment as they age.  The closer one gets to retirement the more goes into bonds and less into stocks.   However, I think such rebalancing is not as smart as the experts say.  IMHO is almost always better off heavily invested in equity funds.  So this becomes a second option.  Invest in a Target fund that is meant for younger people.  In my case I would put into a 2060 or even 2065 target. As JoeTaxpayer pointed out, even in a plan that has high fees and poor choices one is often better off contributing up to the match.  Then one would go outside and contribute to an individual ROTH or IRA (income restrictions may apply), then back into the 401K until the desired amount is invested.   You could always move on to a different employer and ask some really good questions about their 401K.  Which leads me back to talking with HR.  With the current technology shortage, making a few tweaks to the 401K, is a very cheap way to make their employees happy. If you can score a 1099 contracting gig, you can do a SEP which allows up to a whopping 53K per year.  No match but with typically higher pay, sometimes overtime, and a high contribution limit you can easily make up for it." Are my mortgage terms locked in? Who oversees this? Yes your terms like rate, balance, penalties, due dates, are all covered in the mortgage documents. Those will not change. If the mortgage is an adjustable or has a balloon payment those terms will be followed by the new company. That being said, mistakes can be made. Double check everything. I had a transfer get messed up once, and all the terms were wrong. It took a few months but everything was worked out. In fact because they first tried to stonewall me I was able to negotiate some additional concessions out of them. Running your own escrow account is one thing you always want to do. That makes sure that the taxes and insurance are always paid by you, even if the servicing company has a glitch. Generally you have to have enough equity to not have PMI in order to get them to agree to the self-escrow option. If you have a problem with the servicing company then contact the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau a part of the US Government. They have only been a round a few years, thus I have no experience with them. Have an issue with a financial product or service? We'll forward your   complaint to the company and work to get a response from them. The last few times I applied for a mortgage or refinanced a mortgage the lender had to reveal as part of the application stage the percentage of recent mortgages they still own/service. Check those numbers the next time you apply. "There are a few sites out there that can give you some reasoning behind the request. LegalZoom, for instance.  To quote the LZ doc in case the link dies: Employee vs. Independent Contractor If a worker is an employee, the employer is responsible for paying   Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, and possibly other   costs like workers' compensation insurance for the employee; at the   end of the tax year, the employer is responsible for compiling all   necessary payroll reports, including W-2 forms. If a worker is an independent contractor, the employer is not   responsible for any of the above taxes or payments, and the only added   paperwork is the issuing of a 1099 to the independent contractor at   the end of the tax year, if he or she has made more than $600 with the   employer. As Kent suggested, you should speak with an attorney (really you need one if setting up an LLC). There are a lot of companies out there these days that try to classify people as contractors rather than full-time employees as it gets them out of paying benefits and dealing with taxes. This is being heavily cracked down on, and several ""contractor"" employees are winning lawsuits to get full-time status.  If you are truly acting as a contractor, then setting up an LLC can help with a few items such as taxes and protection on certain business aspects (see comments below regarding this). It's easy and relatively cheap (cost me about $250 with extra legal advice tacked on). If you are reporting directly to a manager with the company, or really working in any way that isn't consistent with the definition of a contractor, then I'd turn down the offer and ask to be made a FT employee.  Additional information: https://www.sba.gov/content/hire-contractor-or-employee" Supposedly this also means that I am free from having to pay   California corporate taxes? Not in the slightest. Since you (the corporate employee) reside in CA - the corporation is doing business in CA and is liable for CA taxes. Or, does this mean I am required to pay both CA taxes and Delaware   fees? (In this case, minimal, just a paid agent from incorporate.com) I believe DE actually does have corporate taxes, check it out. But the bottom line is yes, you're liable for both CA and DE costs of doing corporate business (income taxes, registered agents, CA corp fee, etc). Is there any benefit at all for me to be a Delaware C-Corp or should I   dissolve and start over. Or just re-incorporate as California LLC Unless you intend to go public anytime soon or raise money from VCs/investors - there's no benefit whatsoever in incorporating in DE. You should seek a legal advice with an attorney, of course, since benefits are legal issues (usually related to choosing jurisdiction for litigation etc). If you're a one-person freelancer, doing C-Corp was not the best decision as well. Tax-wise you'd be much better off with a S-Corp, or a LLC - both pass-through and have no (Federal) entity-level taxes. Corporate rates are generally higher than individual rates, and less deductions can be taken. In California, check with a CPA/EA licensed in the State, since both S-Corp and LLC would be taxed, and taxed differently. "Assuming you are paying into and eligible to collect regular Employment Insurance benefits for the job in question, I don't see how owning a side business would, by itself, affect your ability to participate in the workshare program.  Many people own dormant businesses ($0 revenue / $0 income), or businesses with insignificant net income (e.g. a small table at the flea market, or a fledgling web-site with up-front costs and no ad revenue, yet ;-) I think what matters is if your side business generated income substantial enough to put you over a certain threshold. Then you may be required to repay a portion of the EI benefits received through the workshare program.  On this issue, I found the following article informative: How to make work-sharing work for you, from the Globe & Mail's Report on Business site.  Here's a relevant quote: ""[...] If you work elsewhere during   the agreement, and earn more than an   amount equal to 40% of your weekly   benefit rate, that amount shall be   deducted from your work sharing   benefits payable that week. [...]"" The definitive source for information on the workshare program is the Service Canada web site.  In particular, see the Work-Sharing Applicant Guide, which discusses eligibility criteria.  Section IV confirms the Globe article's statement above: ""[...] Earnings received in any week   by a Work-Sharing participant, from   sources other than Work-Sharing   employment, that are in excess of an   amount equal to 40% or $75 (whichever   is greater) of the participant's   weekly benefit rate, shall be deducted   from the Work-Sharing benefits payable   in that week. [...]"" Finally, here's one more interesting article that discusses the workshare program: Canada: Employment Law @ Gowlings - March 30, 2009." "This has to do with the type of plan offered: is it a 401(k) plan or a profit-sharing plan, or both? If it's 401(k) I believe the IRS will see this distribution as elective and count towards the employee's annual elective contribution limit. If it's profit sharing the distribution would be counted toward the employer's portion of the limit. However -- profit sharing plans have a formula that's standard across the board and applied to all employees. i.e. 3% of company profits given equally to all employees. One of the benefits of the profit sharing plans is also that you can use a vesting schedule. I'd consult your accountant to see how this specifically impacts your business - but in the case you describe this sounds like an elective deferral choice by an employee and I don't see how (or why) you'd make this decision for them. Give them the bonus and let them choose how it's paid out. Edit: in re-reading your question it actually sounds like you're wanting to setup a profit sharing type situation - but again, heed what I said above. You decide the amount of ""profit"" - but you also have to set an equation that applies across the board. There is more complication to it than this brief explanation and I'd consult your accountant to see how it applies in your situation."