How to buy out one person's share of a jointly owned vehicle with the lowest taxes and fees
You should be able to refinance the vehicle and have the financing in just your name (assuming you can secure the financing). Since you are already on the vehicle registration, this would not constitute a sale, and thus would not incur additional sales tax.  To remove the other person from the vehicle registration, leaving you as the sole registered owner, in the state of New York, you only need to file an MV-82. It will cost you $3. https://dmv.ny.gov/registration/register-vehicle-more-one-owner-or-registrant
"EBITDA is in my opinion not a useful measure for an investor looking to buy shares on the stock market. It is more useful for private businesses open to changing their structuring, or looking to sell significant parts of their business. One of the main benefits of reporting Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation & Amortization, is that it presents the company as it would look to a potential buyer. Consider that net income, as a metric, includes interest costs, taxes, and depreciation.  Interest costs are (to put it simply) a result of multiplying a business's debt by its interest rate. If you own a business, and personally guarantee the loan that the company has with the bank, your interest rates might be artificially low. If you have a policy of reaching high debt levels relative to your equity, in order to achieve high 'financial leveraging', your interest cost might be artificially high. Either way, if I bought your business, my debt structure could be completely different, and therefore your interest costs are not particularly relevant to me, a potential buyer. Instead, I should attempt to anticipate what my own interest costs would be, under my plans for your business. Taxes are a result of many factors, including the corporate structure of the business. If you run your business as a sole proprietorship (ie: no corporation), but I want to buy it under my corporation, then my tax rates could look nothing like yours. Or if we operated in multiple jurisdictions. etc. etc. Instead of using your taxes as an estimate for mine, I should anticipate my taxes based on my plans for your business. Depreciation / amortization is a measure that estimates how much of a business's ""fixed assets"" were ""used up"" during the year. ie: how much wear and tear occurred on your fleet of trucks? It is generally calculated as a % of your overall asset value. It is a (very loose) proxy for the cash costs which will ultimately be incurred to make repairs/replacements. D&A is also something which could significantly change if a business changes hands. If the value of your building is much higher now than when you bought it, I will have higher D&A costs than you [because I will be recording a % of total costs higher than yours], and therefore I should forecast my own D&A. Removing these costs from Net Income is not particularly relevant for a casual stock investor, because these costs will not change when you buy shares. Whatever IBM's interest cost is, reflects the debt structuring policy that the company currently has. Therefore when you buy a share in IBM, you should consider the impact that interest has on net income. Similarly for taxes and D&A - they reflect costs to the business that impact the company's ability to pay you a dividend, and therefore you should look at net income, which includes those costs. Why would a business with 'good net income' and 'good EBITDA' report EBITDA? Because EBITDA will always be higher than net income. Why say $10M net income, when you could say $50M EBITDA? The fact is, it's easy to report, and is generally well understood - so why not report it, when it also makes you look better, from a purely ""big number = good"" perspective? I'm not sure that reporting EBITDA implies any sort of manipulative reporting, but it would seem that Warren Buffet feels this is a risk." "I don't believe it makes a difference at the federal level -- if you file taxes jointly, gains, losses, and dividends appear on the joint tax account.  If you file separately, I assume the tax implications only appear on the owner's tax return.  Then the benefits might outweigh the costs, but only if you correctly predict market behavior and the behavior of your positions. For example, lets say you lose 30k in the market in one year, and your spouse makes 30k.  If you're filing jointly, the loss washes out the gain, and you have no net taxes on the investment.  If you're filing separately, you can claim 3k in loss (the remaining 27k in loss is banked to future tax years), but your spouse pays taxes on 30k in gain. Where things get more interesting is at the state level.  I live in a ""community property state,"" where it doesn't matter whether you have separate accounts or not.  If I use ""community money"" to purchase a stock and make a million bucks, that million bucks is shared by the two of us, whether the account is in my name our in our name.  income during the marriage is considered community property.  However property you bring into the marriage is not.  And inheritances are not community property -- until co-mingled. Not sure how it works in other states.  I grew up in what's called an ""equitable property state.""" "You didn't win in case B. Borrowing shares and then selling them is known as ""selling short"".  You received $2000 when you sold short 100 shares at $20.  You spent $1000 to buy them back at $10, so you come out $1000 ahead on that deal.  But at the same time, the 100 shares you already owned have declined in value from $20 to $10, so you are down $1000 on that deal.  So you've simply broken even, and you are still out the interest and transaction fees. In effect, a short sale allows you to sell shares you don't own.  But if you do already own them, then the effect is the same as if you just sold your own shares.  This makes it easier to see that this is just a complicated and expensive way of accomplishing nothing at all." "The correct answer to this question is:  the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case.  Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral.  Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered.  If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money.  Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D.  D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit.  D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually ""lost"" all the money when purchasing the stock.  After all, all the money went directly from C to B.  In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it.  But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else ""pay"" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value.  C is thus now sitting on a loss.  The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B.  However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to?  The person again is; who bought their stock.  The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls." One approach would be to create Journal Entries that debit asset accounts that are associated with these items and credit an Open Balance Equity account. The value of these contributions would have to be worked out with an accountant, as it depends on the lesser of the adjusted basis vs. the fair market value, as you then depreciate the amounts over time to take the depreciation as a business expense, and it adjusts your basis in the company (to calculate capital gains/losses when you sell). If there were multiple partners, or your accountant wants it this way, you could then debit open balance equity and credit the owner's contribution to a capital account in your name that represents your basis when you sell. From a pure accounting perspective, if the Open Balance Equity account would zero out, you could just skip it and directly credit the capital accounts, but I prefer the Open Balance Equity as it helps know the percentages of initial equity which may influence partner ownership percentages and identify anyone who needs to contribute more to the partnership. Ditto Rocky. Also: Break the sale up over several tax years so that you don't have a spike in your income pushing you into a higher tax bracket. Don't sell it until you retire, when you're probably in a lower tax bracket. (If you're 20, this may be impractical.) Get some other deductions, like medical expenses, charity, etc. Failing that, maybe a couple of other ideas that neither of us thought of, I think the real answer is: suck it up and pay the taxes. If there was a way to reduce your taxes just by checking the right box on a tax form or some such, everybody would do it and the government wouldn't collect any taxes. You could have the buyer go to the bank with you so that he can get evidence that the loan will be paid in full and that the lien will be lifted. The bank won't sign over the title (and lift the lien) until the loan is paid back in full. DMV.org has a pretty good section about this. (Note: not affiliated with the actual DMV) Selling to a Private Party Though more effort will be required on your part, selling a car with a   lien privately could net you a higher profit. Here are a few things   you'll need to consider to make the process easier:  Include the   details of the lien in your listing. You'll list an advertisement for   your car just as you would any other vehicle, with the addition of the   lien information that buyers will need so as to avoid confusion.  Sell   in the location of the lienholder, if possible. If the bank or   financial institution holding the lien is located in the area you're   trying to sell, this will make the transaction much easier. Once you   make an agreement with the buyer, you can go directly to the lender to   pay off the existing lien. Ownership can then be transferred in person   from the financial institution to the buyer.  Consider an escrow   service. If the financial institution isn't in your area, an escrow   service can help to ensure a secure transaction. An escrow service   will assume responsibility for receiving payments from the buyer and   will hold the title until the purchase is complete. Advantages of an   escrow service include: Payoff services, which will do most of the   work with the financing institution for you. Title transfer services,   which can help to ensure a safe and legitimate transaction and provide   the necessary paperwork once the sale is complete. Yes, but then either of you will need the other's permission to sell the car. I strongly recommend you get an agreement on that point, in writing, and possibly reviewed by a lawyer, before entering into this kind of relationship. (See past discussions of car titles and loan cosigners for some examples of how and why this can go wrong.) When doung business with friends, treating it as a serious business transaction is the best way to avoid ruining the friendship.