How does a tax exemption for an action = penalty for inaction?
"What it means is that you can always come up with alternative framings where the difference between two options is stated as a gain or a loss, but the effect is the same in either case.  For instance, if I offer to sell a T-shirt for $10 and offer a cash discount of $1, you pay $10 if buying with a credit card or $9 if buying with cash.  If I instead offer the shirt for $9 with a $1 surcharge for credit card use, you still pay $10 if buying with a credit card or $9 if buying with cash.  The financial result is the same in either case, but psychologically people may perceive them differently and make different buying decisions. In a tax situation it may be more complicated since exemptions wouldn't directly reduce your tax, but only your taxable income.  However, you can still see that, in general, having to pay $X more in tax for not doing some action (e.g., not purchasing health insurance) is the same as being able to pay $X less in tax as a reward for doing the action.  Either way, doing the action results in you paying $X less than you would if you didn't do it; the only difference is in which behavior (doing it or not doing it) is framed as the ""default"" option.  Again, these framings may differentially influence people's behavior even when the net result is the same." "There's a significant difference between ""discount"" and ""surcharge"". For starters - legal difference. If you have a list price of $X - that's the price you're committed to sell regardless of the payment method. So it doesn't matter if I pay with cash or credit - I'll pay $X. However, it costs you more when I pay with credit - so you want to pass that cost on me. You charge me surcharge - an addition to the price. In some States in the US and in some other countries - that is against the law. You cannot add on top of the listed price any amount regardless of the payment method. However, you can say that the list price is $X, which includes the assumed credit card surcharge of $Y. And then you give discount of $Y to anyone not paying with credit card. The list price is still $X, regardless of the payment method. You don't have to give the discount, the discount is your cost of doing business. But that would be legal in some places (not all!) that forbid credit card surcharge. So the main difference from legal perspective is that you're not allowed to add to the list price, but you're allowed to discount from it. Regarding taxes - exemption/deduction is not a penalty for negative. Exemption/deduction is an implementation of a social policy. For example, it is for the public benefit for everyone to own a house. So the Congress comes up with a deduction of mortgage interest. However, you're not penalized if you don't own a house by paying higher taxes. Your tax rate doesn't change. You just don't get to deduct something that you might be able to deduct had you owned a house with a mortgage. This is, again - a discount of a list price, not a surcharge. You're not penalized if you don't have a house or don't have a mortgage, but if you do - you get a break. The author you're quoting claims that bottom line would be the same as if you considered the absence of a deduction as a penalty. But that's not true, because even if you do have a mortgage you may not be able to deduct it because your income is too high, the mortgage is for too much, or your mortgage is not on the primary residence. So mere existence of the mortgage doesn't directly correlate to the existence of the deduction. Similarly with credit card surcharges - you may get a cash discount, but you may get the similar amount of money back even if you use a credit card. Not as a cash discount but rather as rewards, cash-backs or points. However, if there's no cash discount, you won't be getting these if you're paying cash. So again - you're not penalized for having a credit card by not getting a discount, because you may still get it in a different way - and if you don't, you still may end up not getting it. So the quote is a rather simplistic and negative view and more of an opinion than stating a fact."
"Does the money lending between us need to be reported in our tax   reports? No. Will he be taxed more because of lending the money to me? Yes. Will I be taxed more because of borrowing the money from him? No. How shall we report it so as to minimize our taxes? You cannot. What is reported on your tax returns is the income. A loan is not an income, so nothing gets reported. However, when you repay the loan, assuming it has interest, the lender has income: the interest. Interest income is reported on schedule B of the regular (1040/1040A) tax return (or, in the case of non-resident for tax purposes, on line 9 of 1040NR). It is taxed as ordinary income, and since you're both foreigners - the lender should look into the treaty provisions that might be relevant. Generally it is not exempt from taxable income based on treaty exemptions for students (which is only for earned income), but there might be other rules in the treaty regarding interest income. If there's no (fair market or higher) interest, then there's ""assumed"" interest at the IRS mandated rates, which is considered a gift. If it amounts to more than the yearly gift exemption, the lender may be liable for gift tax (depending on the lender's and your status, and again - see treaties). ""Loan"" without an obligation to repay and without actual repaying will also be considered a gift for tax purposes. If the lender has no intentions of having the loan repaid (i.e.: making a gift), it will be better to pay your tuition bills instead of actually giving you the money: tuition is exempt from gift tax. Talk to a CPA/EA licensed in your state for a proper tax advice on this issue." "Your mortgage terms are locked in; the servicer/new owner cannot  change the terms without your consent, but the servicer can be more aggressive in taking action  (as specified in your mortgage contract) against you. For example, if the mortgage agreement calls for penalties for missing a payment or making it late, your friendly neighborhood banker might waive the penalty if the payment is received a day late once (but perhaps not the second or the third time), but the servicer doesn't know you personally and does not care; you are hit with the penalty right  away. If the payment was received a day late because of delays in the post office, too bad. If you used a bank bill payment service that ""guarantees"" on-time arrival, talk to the bank. All  perfectly legal, and what you agreed to when you signed the contract. If you can set up electronic payments of your mortgage payments, you can avoid many of these hassles. If you are sending in more money than what is due each month, you should make sure that the extra money reduces the principal amount owed; easy enough if you are sending a physical check with a coupon that has an entry line for ""Extra payment applied to principal"" on it. But, the best mortgage contracts (from the bank's point of view) are those that say that extra money sent in applies to future monthly installments. That is, if you send in more than the monthly payment one month, you can send in a reduced payment next month; the bank will gladly hold the extra amount sent in this month and apply it towards next month's payment. So, read your mortgage document (I know, I know, the fine print is incomprehensible) to see how extra money is applied. Finally, re-financing your mortgage because you don't like the servicer is a losing proposition unless you can, somehow,  ensure that your new bank will not sell your new mortgage to the same servicer or someone even worse." I strongly recommend that you talk to an accountant right away because you could save some money by making a tax payment by January 15, 2014. You will receive Forms 1099-MISC from the various entities with whom you are doing business as a contractor detailing how much money they paid you. A copy will go to the IRS also. You file a Schedule C with your Form 1040 in which you detail how much you received on the 1099-MISC forms as well as any other income that your contracting business received (e.g. amounts less than $600 for which a 1099-MISc does not need to be issued, or tips, say, if you are a taxi-driver running your own cab), and you can deduct various expenses that you incurred in generating this income, including tools, books, (or gasoline!) etc that you bought for doing the job. You will need to file a Schedule SE that will compute how much you owe in Social Security and Medicare taxes on the net income on Schedule C. You will pay at twice the rate that employees pay because you get to pay not only the employee's share but also the employer's share. At least, you will not have to pay income tax on the employer's share. Your net income on Schedule C will transfer onto Form 1040 where you will compute how much income tax you owe, and then add on the Social Security tax etc to compute a final amount of tax to be paid. You will have to pay a penalty for not making tax payments every quarter during 2013, plus  interest on the tax paid late.  Send the IRS a check for the total. If you talk to an accountant right away, he/she will likely be able to come up with a rough estimate of what you might owe, and sending in that amount by January 15 will save some money. The accountant can also help you set up for the 2014 tax year during which you could make quarterly payments of estimated tax for 2014 and avoid the penalties and interest referred to above. "H.R. basically consults Publication 15 (this is the link to 2015) to determine how much to hold, based on filing status, exemptions, and pay amount. What's described here is a form of estimation, or, in other words, H.R. withholds what would be your actual taxes, dividing across the number of paychecks you receive. Assuming your gross pay and exemptions do not change, this usually results in a zero-sum for taxes owed (you will receive nothing, and owe nothing). As you can see from the charts, the year is basically broken down into equal tax units that reflect how much you would owe if you worked at that bracket all year. This estimation works best when you have steady hours from check to check. In other words, your taxes are based on the estimate of what you'd make if you earned that much all year, scaled down to the time frame (e.g. 1/52 if you are paid weekly, or 1/26 if you paid biweekly). They do not go ""up"" near the end of the year, because they're estimated in advance. You don't move up a tax bracket, but are instead taxed at a particular bracket every paycheck. There's also other forms of estimation mentioned there, but basically follow the same scheme. Note that all estimation forms are just that-- estimates. It's best to use a calculator and compare your current taxes whenever a significant change occurs-- a raise, a new child, getting married or divorced, etc. You'll want to be able to alter your exemptions so that enough taxes are coming out. That's also the reason for the ""withhold extra"" box, so that you can avoid owing. For example, if you're making $44 a week for the first 26 weeks, and then you make $764 a week for the second 26 weeks of the year, you'll end up with an actual tax liability of $2,576.6, but end up paying only $2,345.20. You would owe $231.40. Of course, the actual math is a lot more complicated if you're an employee paid by the minute, for example, or you have a child, go to college, etc. Paychecks that vary wildly, like $10,000 one week and $2,000 the next tend to have the hardest-to-predict estimates (e.g. jobs with big commission payouts). You should avoid living check-to-check with jobs that pay this way, because you'll probably end up owing taxes. Conversely, if you've done your estimates right and you're paid salary or exactly the same number of hours every week, you'll find that the taxes are much easier to predict and you can usually easily create a refund situation simply by having the correct exemptions on your check. So, in summation, if your check falls in the 25% category (which is, of course, 25% above the tax bracket break point), you're already paying the correct amount, and no further drop in your check would be expected." Note that folks may also be shopping for supplies for a nonprofit tax-exempt organization. I made such a purchase a few weeks ago. Whatever the legal basis of the exception,  you need to be able to prove to the store that you have it. If you can't,  they must collect the tax. The difference is whether your options qualify as incentive stock options (ISOs), or whether they are non-qualifying options. If your options meet all of the criteria for being ISOs (see here), then (a) you are not taxed when you exercise the options.  You treat the sale of the underlying stock as a long term capital gain, with the basis being the exercise price (S). There is something about the alternative minimum tax (AMT) as they pertain to these kinds of options.  Calculating your AMT basically means that your ISOs are treated as non-qualifying options.  So if your exercise bumps you into AMT territory, too bad, so sad. If you exercise earlier, you do get a clock ticking, as you put it, because one of the caveats of having your options qualify as ISOs is that you hold the underlying stock (a) at least two years after you were granted the options and (b) at least one year after you exercise the options. But it's not tax evasion. They are trying to avoid the US's double dipping on foreign income -- an unjust tax if there ever was one. If the money is made overseas then the US government shouldn't have any right to it. I mean, they didn't build any of that infrastructure. That's the way it works in most countries. Their fair share is 0. "The government thought of that a long time ago, and has any loophole there plugged. Like if you set up a company to buy a car and then allow you to use it ... You can use the car for company business, like driving to a customer's office to make a sales call or delivery, and the cost of the car is then tax deductible. But the company must either prohibit personal use of the car, or keep a log of personal versus business use and the personal use becomes taxable income to you. So at best you'd get to deduct an expense here and then you'd have to add it back there for a net change in taxable income of zero. In general the IRS is very careful about personal use of business property and makes it tough to get away with a free ride. I'm sure there are people who lie about it and get away with it because they're never audited, but even if that causes you no ethical qualms, it's very risky. I don't doubt that there are people with very smart lawyers who have found loopholes in the rules. But it's not as simple as, ""I call myself a business and now all my personal expenses become tax deductible business expenses."" If you could do that, everybody would do it and no one would pay taxes. Which might be a good thing, but the IRS doesn't see it that way."