query: Tax consequences of changing state residency?

positive: It also depends on where you work. If you move your home and your job then the date you establish residency in the new state is the key date. All income before that date is considered income for state 1, and all income on or after that date is income for state 2.  If there is a big  difference in income you will want to clearly establish residency because it impacts your wallet. If they had the same rates moving wouldn't impact your wallet, but it would impact each state. So make sure when going from high tax state to low tax state that you register your vehicles, register to vote, get a new drivers license... It becomes more complex if you move your home but not your job. In that case where you work might be the deciding factor. Same states have agreed that where you live is the deciding factor; in other cases it is not. For Virginia, Maryland, and DC you pay based on where you live if the two states involved are DC, MD, VA. But if you Live in Delaware and work in Virginia Virginia wants a cut of your income tax.  So before you move you need to research reciprocity for the two states. From Massachusetts information for Nonresident and Part-Year Resident Income, Exemptions, Deductions and Credits Massachusetts gross income includes items of income derived from   sources within Massachusetts. This includes income: a few questions later: Massachusetts residents and part-year residents are allowed a credit   for taxes due to any other jurisdiction. The credit is available only   on income reported and taxed on a Massachusetts return. Nonresidents   may not claim the taxes paid to other jurisdiction credit on their   Massachusetts Form 1-NR/PY. The credit is allowed for income taxes paid to: The credit is not allowed for: taxes paid to the U.S. government or a   foreign country other than Canada; city or local tax; and interest and   penalty paid to another jurisdiction. The computation is based on comparing the Massachusetts income tax on   income reported to the other jurisdiction to the actual tax paid to   the other jurisdiction; the credit is limited to the smaller of these   two numbers. The other jurisdiction credit is a line item on the tax form but you   must calculate it on the worksheet in the instruction booklet and also   enter the credit information on the Schedule OJC. So if you move your house to New Hampshire, but continue to work in Massachusetts you will owe income tax to Massachusetts  for that income even after you move and establish residency in New Hampshire.

positive: I did the reverse several years ago, moving from NH to MA. You will need to file Form 1-NR/PY for 2017, reporting MA income as a part-year residence. I assume you will need to report the April capital gain on your MA tax return, as you incurred the gain while a MA resident. (I am not a lawyer or tax professional, so I don't want to state anything about this as a fact, but I would be very surprised if moving after you incurred the gain would have any affect on where you report it.)

negative: "From IRS Publication 970 Tax Benefits for Education Note: Qualified tuition programs (QTPs) are also called ""529 plans.""  Changing the Designated Beneficiary There are no income tax consequences if the designated beneficiary of   an account is changed to a member of the beneficiary's family. See   Members of the beneficiary's family , earlier.  Members of the beneficiary's family. For these purposes, the beneficiary's family includes the   beneficiary's spouse and the following other relatives of the   beneficiary. regarding ownership changes: Rollovers Any amount distributed from a QTP isn't taxable if it is rolled over   to another QTP for the benefit of the same beneficiary or for the   benefit of a member of the beneficiary's family (including the   beneficiary's spouse). An amount is rolled over if it is paid to   another QTP within 60 days after the date of the distribution. Don't report qualifying rollovers (those that meet the above criteria)   anywhere on Form 1040 or 1040NR. These aren't taxable distributions. Example. When Aaron graduated from college last year, he had $5,000 left in his   QTP. He wanted to give this money to his younger brother, who was in   junior high school. In order to avoid paying tax on the distribution   of the amount remaining in his account, Aaron contributed the same   amount to his brother's QTP within 60 days of the distribution. So it appears that as far as the IRS in concerned the rollover could be done to change ownership as long as the beneficiary was in the same family. It is possible that there could be a state tax issue with the change of ownership, if it changed from a plan in state A to one in state B; and state A treated the original contributions as a tax deduction. So check the guidelines for the specific 529 plan."

negative: "I also don't know the specific details for Finland and/or Belgium, however many countries have tax treaties, which generally prevent double taxation (i.e., paying tax in both countries on the same base income). Being that both Finland and Belgium are EU member states, I'm quite certain there's a provision that covers this, and the same would apply: You pay taxes on what you earn while in Finland to Finland, and to Belgium what you earn while in Belgium. All of this is similar to what you presented, however there's also a section where you'd declare how much taxes were paid in other countries. One other thing to note, which will be the determining factor in the above, is whether EU law requires you to change residence to BE for the time you're there. If not  then you'll be paying taxes in Finland the entire time on the entire amount. This comes from an Irish governmental site: ""By working in another member state and by transferring your residence there, you are likely to become ""resident for tax purposes"" there. The definition of fiscal residence varies from one member state to another. You must comply with the laws of the country where you have established your residence. The laws on personal taxation vary considerably from one member state to another and you may be liable for taxation in more than one country. In general, you are subject to income tax in the country where you are living but this may not be the case if you are a “posted worker” – see below. In general, property is taxed in the country in which it is situated but, again, there are variations. Tax agreements have been concluded between most of the member states of the EU, which are intended to avoid double taxation, if you derive income from different countries. In general, national fiscal rules must respect the fundamental principle of non-discrimination against nationals of another EU country."""

negative: Many states have a simple method for assessing income tax on nonresidents.  If you have $X income in State A where you claim nonresident status and  $Y income overall, then you owe State A a fraction (X/Y) of the income  tax that would have been due on $Y income had you been a resident of State A.  In other words, compute the state income tax on $Y as per State A rules, and send us (X/Y) of that amount.  If you are a resident of State B, then State B  will tax you on $Y but give you some credit for taxes paid to State A. Thus, you might be required to file a State A income tax return regardless of how small $X is.  As a practical matter, many commercial real-estate  investments are set up as limited partnerships in which most of the annual taxable income is a small amount of portfolio income (usually interest income that you report on Schedule B of Form 1040), and the annual  bottom line is lots of passive losses which the limited partners report (but do not get to deduct) on the Federal return.  As a result, State A is unlikely to come after you for the tax on, say, $100 of interest income each year because it will cost them more to go after you than they will  recover from you. But, when the real estate is sold, there will (hopefully) be a big capital gain, most of which  will be sheltered from Federal tax since the passive losses finally get  to be deducted.  At this point, State A is not only owed a lot of money (it knows nothing of your passive losses etc) but, after it processes the income tax return that you filed for that year, it will likely demand that you file income tax returns for previous years as well.

negative: According to the Colorado form CY104PN, Colorado taxes income earned while working in or being a resident of the State of Colorado. Assuming you never set foot in the State of Colorado, I read it as if you will only be liable to pay taxes in the State of New York (on all of your income, of course). You can get a more reliable opinion from a Colorado-licensed CPA.

negative: So I want to sell my 100 shares of AAPL to him at a price of 10 or   even 1 US Dollar. Is that legal/allowed? Of course. It's your stocks - do with it what you want. if the two persons are not served by a same broker. You'll have to talk to your broker about the technicalities of the transaction. if the person who sell are US citizen and the person who buy are not, and and vice-versa Since you asked specifically about US citizenship, I'll assume you're in the US or the transaction is taking place in the US. Citizenship has nothing to do with it (except may be for economic sanctions against Russians or Iranians that may come into play). What is important is the tax residency status. Such a transfer is essentially a gift, and if you're a US tax resident (which doesn't correlate to your immigration status necessarily) - you'll have to deal with the gift tax consequences on the discount value. For example - you have 100 shares of AAPL which you sold to your friend for $1 each when the fair market value (FMV) was $501. So essentially, the friend got $50,100 value for $100. I.e.: $50K gift. Since this amount is above the annual $14K exemption - you'll have to deal with the gift tax and file gift tax return. There are also consequences for the capital gains tax for both you and your friend. I suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about the specifics given your circumstances. If you (or the recipient) are also a foreign citizen/tax resident - then that country's laws also may affect your situation.

negative: "New York will want to you to pay taxes on income from ""New York sources"". I'm not sure what this means to a freelance web developer.  If your wife is doing freelance web development under the same business entity as she did in New York (ie. a New York sole proprietor, corporation, etc), you probably do need to file. From nonresident tax form manual: http://tax.ny.gov/pdf/2011/inc/it203i_2011.pdf If you were a nonresident of New York State, you are subject to New   York State tax on income you received from New York State sources in   2011. If you were a resident of New York State for only part of 2011, you are subject to New York State tax on all income you received while   you were a resident of the state and on income you received from New   York State sources while  you were a nonresident.  To compute the amount of tax due, use Form IT-203, Nonresident and   Part-Year Resident Income Tax Return. You will compute a base tax as   if you were a full-year  resident, then determine the percentage of   your income that is subject to New York State tax and the amount of   tax apportioned to New York State."

negative: "The current tax regime?  Not sure if you are being serious or facetious, but:  [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements)  >If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, **you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.**  In contrast, corporations don't pay taxes on profits earned abroad until repatriation [here](http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/14/news/economy/corporate-taxes-inversion/index.html), [here](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/business/economy/corporate-tax-report.html), [here](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-apple-profits/).  So guess what they NEVER do?  This is why literally every large US multi-national corporate ""person"" pays next to nothing in taxes.  It is quite obvious that this is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of tax law.    That simple fix would wipe out massive amounts of government debt and force multi-national corporations and their shareholders to become engaged stake holders in the efficiency of government.  But if, unlike W-2 paid human counterparts, you can dodge all taxation, ""Who cares if the government is using funds efficiently?""  That is incentive to actually game the system to force the government into wasteful spending because the subsequent fallout of increased taxation and/or failure of the state can be dodged without consequence."

negative: "It depends on how long you stay and where you earn your income. You can be a US resident for tax purposes even if you are not for immigration purposes. The ""substantive presence test"" probably applies to you: You will be considered a United States resident for tax purposes if you meet the substantial presence test for the calendar year. To meet this test, you must be physically present in the United States (U.S.) on at least: https://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Substantial-Presence-Test There are some exceptions to this test, and tax treaties may also apply.  See IRS Publication 519 for more information."

negative: I can only answer about the U.S. For question 2, I believe the answer is no. If you are a non-resident alien for tax purposes, then only income connected to the U.S. is reported as income on the tax return. Unless there were any non-deductible contributions to your pre-tax IRAs, when you convert to Roth IRA, the entire amount of the conversion is added to your income. So the tax consequence is the same as if you had that much additional U.S. income. If you are a non-resident alien with no other income in the U.S., then the income you have to report on your U.S. tax return will basically consist of the conversion. Non-resident aliens do not have a standard deduction. However, all people have a personal exemption. If we take 2013 as an example, the exemption is $3900 per person. We will assume that you will file as single or married filing separately (non-resident aliens cannot file as married filing jointly). The first $3900 of income is covered by the exemption, and is not counted in taxable income. For single and MFS, the next $8925 of income is taxed at 10%, then next $27325 of income is taxed at 15%, and so on. So if you convert less than the personal exemption amount every year ($3900 in 2013), then in theory you do not pay any taxes. If you convert a little bit more, then some of the conversion will be taxed at 10%, etc.

negative: "Ed: Saw your comment, thank you. The short answer (a rough simplification), seems to be that you pay PA income tax for income made in PA. You pay IL income tax for income made in IL, not income made across both states. And you make sure the IL amount paid is correct via a credit calculated on Schedule CR. It looks to me (bear with me, I am no expert on tax law in IL, PA, or in general, so consult a professional for ""good"" advice :), like you basically do this on Schedule CR: It looks like there may be some more pertinent info on Publication 111, so that may potentially change the math a bit too. This check is 2014 income, during which you are a resident of IL. It's income from a PA employer. You must file a tax return in PA regardless, since you ""earned income in PA"". Did your former employer withhold PA income taxes on this particular paycheck? I'm not seeing where it says you should not include tax withheld; could you please point that out? Perhaps they mean you should only include tax actually considered ""due"" on the PA tax return. From IL's Schedule CR instructions: What is the purpose of Schedule CR?   Schedule CR, Credit for Tax Paid to Other States, allows you to   take a credit for income taxes you paid to other states on income   you received while a resident of Illinois. You are allowed this credit   only if you filed a required tax return with the other state. You must   use information from the tax return you filed with the other state to   complete Schedule CR.   ...    What taxes qualify for the credit?   Taxes that qualify for the credit are income taxes you paid to another   state of the United States,"

negative: "You'll need to read carefully the German laws on tax residency, in many European (and other) tax laws the loss of residency due to absence is conditioned on acquiring residency elsewhere. But in general, it is possible to use treaties and statuses so that you end up not being resident anywhere, but it doesn't mean that the income is no longer taxed. Generally every country taxes income sourced to it unless an exclusion applies, so if you can no longer apply the treaty due to not being a resident - you'll need to look for general exclusions in the tax law. I don't know how Germany taxes scholarships under the general rules, you'll have to check it. It is possible that they're not taxed. Many people try to raise the argument of ""I'm not a resident"" to avoid income taxes altogether on earnings on their work - this would not work. But with a special kind of income like scholarship, which may be exempt under the law, it may. Keep in mind, that the treaty has ""who is or was immediately before visiting a Contracting State a resident of the other Contracting State"" language in some relevant cases, so you may still apply it in the US even if no longer resident in Germany."

negative: "The fair tax is a proposal to replace the US income tax with a sales tax. Pros of Fair Tax:  It's a large change to the way the United States currently does things. The ""Fair Tax Act of 2011"" is H.R.25 in the US House and S.13 in the Senate. The full text of the bill is available at the links provided. There are some fairly large consequences of implementing a fair tax.   For example, 401ks and Roth IRAs serve no benefit over non-retirement investments.   Mortgages would no longer have a tax advantage.  Luxury items would get far more expensive."

negative: It is not a question of where you have your driver's license.  It is a question of the states' tax related residency rules.  (Though a driver's license can be a part of that question.) Since you likely have a residence in NYC and so can prove residency through a lease, bills, etc., you probably have to file as a NYS/NYC resident.   I do have to question your maintaining a California driver's license if you are not a resident.  If you are attempting to maintain dual-residency, look into both states' residency rules to see if you are liable for taxes in both states.   California seems particularly picky about these types of situations, probably due to concerns that you may be trying to circumvent California taxes.  That said, it usually revolves around income in the state.  Of course, if you maintain residency in California as well, the argument can be made that you owe some taxes due to the fact that you take advantage of state services.  (E.g. you drive on California roads.) I suggest you consult a tax professional knowledgeable in these issues to sort out the details.

negative: "You owe taxes to the state where you earned the income, and also to the state where you physically live. Most, maybe all, states have laws that let you claim credits for taxes paid to other states so that you're not paying double taxes by living in one state while working in another. Most states have deals with all their neighboring states so that you only have to file taxes in one. For example, I live in Michigan, and Michigan borders Ohio. Lots of people who live near the border live in one state but work in the other. So the two have a deal that anyone who lives in Michigan but works in Ohio just has to file a Michigan tax return and pay Michigan taxes, and anyone who lives in Ohio and works in Michigan just has to pay Ohio taxes. Oh, I should note that these adjacent state deals apply only to employment income, not business income. If you own a business in another state, you'll still have to file taxes in that state. You still should get tax credits in your residence state. In general the fact that you use a server in another state doesn't make you liable for taxes in that state. I understand that New York says that if you work from home and the company headquarters is in New York, you have to pay New York taxes. Maybe there are a few other states who do this. But just because a server is in their state? I've never heard of this. If I order business supplies that are shipped from a warehouse in Arizona, that doesn't make me liable for Arizona income taxes, etc.  You are legally a ""resident"" of the state where you actually live. If you have a home and live in it most of the time, then you are a resident of the state where that home is. A ""home"" doesn't have to be a house. It could be an apartment, an RV that you live in in a trailer park, a tent, etc. If you don't own any sort of fixed home and you travel around a lot, this could be tricky. You mentioned Oklahoma. Oklahoma defines ""resident"" as follows:  An Oklahoma resident is a person domiciled in this state for the entire tax year. “Domicile” is the place established as a person’s true, fixed, and permanent home. It is the place you intend to return whenever you are away (as on    vacation abroad, business assignment, educational leave or military assignment). A domicile, once established, remains until a new one is adopted. (https://www.ok.gov/tax/documents/511NRPkt-14.pdf) I'm not sure that that clears things up for you. You can't just pick a state with low taxes and claim that as your residence. No way is the state where you actually live going to accept that. If you are in an ambiguous situation, like you spend 6 months per year in state A and 6 months in state B and you have no fixed home in either -- maybe you stay at motels or live in your minivan -- you might get away with picking the state with the most favorable tax laws as your residence. But if you spend 7 months in state A and 5 months in state B, state A will almost surely claim you are a resident and owe them taxes. If you regularly wander the country, never spend more than a few days in any one place, and rarely come back to the same place twice, then you have a complicated situation and you probably need to talk to a tax lawyer."

negative: "This is an answer grounded in reality, not advice. Most states have no means of enforcing their foreign business entity registration statutes. Some states never even codified consequences. (California is a notable exception.). Some states have 'business licenses' that you need in order to defend your entity in court, but will retroactively apply the corporate veil when you get the license. The ""do I have to register"" question is analogous to asking a barber if you need a haircut. But this doesn't absolve you of looking in the mirror (doing your research). Registration and INCOME taxes are different stories. If a state calls their fee a franchise tax and it is applicable and there are real consequences for not, then you will have to pay that tax. Anyway, this isn't advocating breaking the law, but since it describes ignoring toothless state-chartered agencies, then there are people that will disagree with this post, despite being in line with business climate in the United States. Hope that helps"

negative: "You may be considered a resident for tax purposes. To meet the substantial presence test, you must have been physically present in the United States on at least: 31 days during the current year, and       183 days during the 3 year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before. To satisfy the 183 days requirement, count:           All of the days you were present in the current year, and           One-third of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and           One-sixth of the days you were present in the second year before the current year. If you are exempt, I'd check that ending your residence in Germany doesn't violate terms of the visa, in which case you'd lose your exempt status. If you are certain that you can maintain your exempt status, then the income would definitively not be taxed by the US as it is not effectively connected income: You are considered to be engaged in a trade or business in the United States if you are temporarily present in the United States as a nonimmigrant on an ""F,"" ""J,"" ""M,"" or ""Q"" visa. The taxable part of any U.S. source scholarship or fellowship grant received by a nonimmigrant in ""F,"" ""J,"" ""M,"" or ""Q"" status is treated as effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States. and your scholarship is sourced from outside the US: Generally, the source of scholarships, fellowship grants, grants, prizes, and awards is the residence of the payer regardless of who actually disburses the funds. I would look into this from a German perspective. If they have a rule similiar to the US for scholarships, then you will still be counted as a resident there."

negative: As a resident of New York State you will, in addition to the Federal income tax handled by the IRS, be responsible for state and local income taxes. For New York the state tax forms are also used to determine your New York city tax. If HR was either not aware of the local tax requirement for New York or you filled out the New York State version of the W-4 incorrectly you may have had too little tax withheld for New York state. The refund from the IRS is not dependent on the refund/owe status for state and local taxes. It is possible that your state taxes are fine but that you owe taxes to the city. That tax you owe to the city will reduce the refund from the state and may require you to pay money to New York. Of course if you do itemize, what you pay to the state and city may result in deductions on your federal form. If you owe back taxes to the state or local government this could result in the IRS seizing a federal refund, but that doesn't happen right away.

negative: As a nonresident sole proprietor or partnership You are not a sole proprietor or a member of a legal partnership. You are an employee for a corporation.  Does the nature of your work require you to be present in New York regularly? If you are in New York for personal reasons, you are simply telecommuting. You must pay taxes personally for your W-2 income, but your business entity never moved from Wyoming. If this were not true, companies would have to pay corporate income tax to every state in which they have a telecommuter. For example, I live in Florida but telecommute to a company in Michigan. Does my employer pay Florida business tax? Of course not. Your business would only owe New York if the nature of the business requires a consistent and regular business presence in New York, such as maintaining an office for a portion of every year so clients could see you.

negative: This taxation guide may be helpful in sorting out some of your questions.  I'm not entirely versatile with UK tax, so my answer will stay broad.  I think the answer may be to consult a professional advisor. You may become non-resident but remain UK domiciled.  Everybody has exactly one domicile and it is essentially their permanent home (the place where they intend to one day return and live.  The test is based on your intent - do you intend to return to the UK or do you intend to make another land your permanent home?  Simply traveling about the world will not establish a new domicile for you.  So you may owe some taxes on your worldwide income or capital gains while a UK-domiciled non-resident, as suggested here. If it helps, the UK tax residence rules are listed by HMRC online.  If your business is a corporation, there's a different analysis.  You may also want to refer to the UK-BVI tax treaty.  HMRC offers a tax residence calculator to help sort your residence, if you plan to return often.

negative: Generally this gets corrected when you file returns for both States -- one owes you some refund, and younowe some money to the other. Multistate tax returns are their own special kettle of worms, so you might want to consider hiring a pro to straighten this out -- their software has some tools personal packages don't.

negative: "The other answer has mentioned ""factual resident"", and you have raised the existence of a U.S./Canada tax treaty in your comment, and provided a link to a page about determining residency. I'd like to highlight part of the first link: You are a factual resident of Canada for tax purposes if you keep   significant residential ties in Canada while living or travelling   outside the country. The term factual resident means that, although you left Canada, you   are still considered to be a resident of Canada for income tax   purposes. Notes If you have established ties in a country that Canada has a tax treaty   with and you are considered to be a resident of that country, but you   are otherwise a factual resident of Canada, meaning you maintain   significant residential ties with Canada, you may be considered a   deemed non-resident of Canada for tax purposes. [...] I'll emphasize that ""considered to be a resident of Canada for income tax purposes"" means you do need to file Canadian income tax returns. The Notes section does indicate the potential treaty exemption that you mentioned, but it is only a potential exemption. Note the emphasis (theirs, not mine) on the word ""may"" in the last paragraph above. Please don't assume ""may"" is necessarily favorable with respect to your situation. The other side of the ""may"" coin is ""may not"". The Determining your residency status page you mentioned in your comment says this: If you want the Canada Revenue Agency's opinion on your residency   status, complete either Form NR74, Determination of Residency Status   (Entering Canada) or Form NR73, Determination of Residency Status   (Leaving Canada), whichever applies, and send it to the International   and Ottawa Tax Services Office. To get the most accurate opinion,   provide as many details as possible on your form. So, given your ties to Canada, I would suggest that until and unless you have obtained an opinion from the Canada Revenue Agency on your tax status, you would be making a potentially unsafe assumption if you yourself elect not to file your Canadian income tax returns based on your own determination. You could end up liable for penalties and interest if you don't file while you are outside of Canada. Tax residency in Canada is not a simple topic. For instances, let's have a look at S5-F1-C1, Determining an Individual’s Residence Status. It's a long page, but here's one interesting piece:  1.44 The Courts have stated that holders of a United States Permanent Residence Card (otherwise referred to as a Green Card) are   considered to be resident in the United States for purposes of   paragraph 1 of the Residence article of the Canada-U.S. Tax   Convention. For further information, see the Federal Court of Appeal's   comments in Allchin v R, 2004 FCA 206, 2004 DTC 6468.   [...] ... whereas you are in the U.S. on a TN visa, intended to be temporary. So you wouldn't be exempt just on the basis of your visa and the existence of the treaty. The CRA would look at other circumstances. Consider the ""Centre of vital interests test"": Centre of vital interests test [...] “If the individual has a permanent home in both Contracting States, it   is necessary to look at the facts in order to ascertain with which of   the two States his personal and economic relations are closer. Thus,   regard will be had to his family and social relations, his   occupations, his political, cultural or other activities, his place of   business, the place from which he administers his property, etc. The   circumstances must be examined as a whole, but it is nevertheless   obvious that considerations based on the personal acts of the   individual must receive special attention. If a person who has a home   in one State sets up a second in the other State while retaining the   first, the fact that he retains the first in the environment where he   has always lived, where he has worked, and where he has his family and   possessions, can, together with other elements, go to demonstrate that   he has retained his centre of vital interests in the first State.” [emphasis on last sentence is mine] Anyway, I'm acquainted with somebody who left Canada for a few years to work abroad. They assumed that living in the other country for that length of time (>2 years) meant they were non-resident here and so did not have to file. Unfortunately, upon returning to Canada, the CRA deemed them to have been resident all that time based on significant ties maintained, and they subsequently owed many thousands of dollars in back taxes, penalties, and interest. If it were me in a similar situation, I would err on the side of caution and continue to file Canadian income taxes until I got a determination I could count on from the people that make the rules."

negative: If you're a Canadian resident then yes, it is taxable to you. The islands don't have income taxes on income earned there, but your country does. If you lose your Canadian residency and move to live in these islands, then the answer may change.

negative: Having a large state return also means that there is a potential income tax liability created at the federal level for the following year, as the situation resulted from the deduction of more on one's federal return than should have been deducted. The state refund is treated as federal income in the year it is refunded. http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/is-my-state-tax-refund-taxable-and-why-90/

negative: Canada doesn't tax non-residents on income earned/incurred outside of Canada. So, your sister should start with this page to determine the residency status. If she is indeed determined to be non-resident - she should look here to see her obligations. If all she earns she earns outside of Canada - her obligations will be very little, if at all. This is similar to almost any other country in the world, with the notable exception of the United States of America. US citizens are taxed regardless of their residency status, everywhere in the world on worldwide income (unless tax treaty says otherwise).

negative: "Depends. If you can choose where to relocate to, then I second the ""no income tax"" states. But even of these chose wisely, some have no income taxes at all, others have taxes on some kinds of income. Some don't have neither individual nor corporate taxes, some tax businesses in some ways. Some compensate with higher property taxes, others compensate with higher sales taxes. On the other hand, you might prefer states with income taxes but no sales taxes. It can happen if your current income is going to be low, but you'll be spending your savings. If you don't have a choice (for example, your employer wants you to move closer to their office), then you're more limited. Still, you can use the tax break on moving expenses (read the fine print, there are certain employment requirements), and play with the state taxes (if you're moving to a state with less/no taxes - move earlier, if its the other way - move later). Check out for cities that have income taxes. In some states it cannot happen by law (for example, in California only the state is allowed to collect income taxes), in others it is very common (Ohio comes to mind). Many things to consider in New York. New York City has its own income tax (as well as Yonkers, as far as I remember these are the only ones in the State of New York). So if you want to save on taxes in NYS but live close to the city, consider White Plains etc. If you work in NYC its moot, you're going to pay city taxes anyway. That is also true if you live in NJ but work in the city, so tax-wise it may be more efficient not to live across state lines from your place of work."

negative: "New York State is one of a few states that will go after telecommuter taxes (such that some people may end up paying double tax even if they don't live in NY).  There are a few ways that you can avoid this. If you NEVER come to NY for work, and your employer can stipulate that your position is only available to be filled remotely, you will likely be covered. But there are a myriad of factors relating to this such as whether the employer reimburses you for your home office and whether you keep ""business records"" at your office.  Provided you can easily document the the factors in TSB-M-06(5)I, you shouldn't have to pay NYS taxes.  (source: I've worked with a NYS tax attorney as an employer to deal with this exact scenario)."

negative: A couple of thoughts. Tax benefits are the usual reasons to decide on one residency or another. International tax law is complex, and it's probably best to consult a professional. Certainly without knowing which the other country is I would not want to hazard a guess. If he is really not going to be taxed on the other country, residing there would seem sensible. But... In Canada residency for tax purposes is established for an entire year. If you are resident for more than six months your salary for the year is taxable. Conversely if you are present for less than six months you are not taxable. (This may have changed - it's been twenty years since I did this.) The other issue is healthcare. If you are not resident in Ontario you are not eligible for free healthcare, I believe. He might have to purchase supplemental insurance if he returns occasionally.

negative: "This is why California tax code is even more messed up than the Federal - they take the Federal and then add some. Or remove. Or mix up. Whether your brokerage will send 1099 or not is up to the brokerage. Its a Federal requirement. California may require them to send it out for CA residents, or may not. They may adhere to the FTB, or may not. It doesn't matter to you. You'll have to keep track of the interest and dividends received, cost basis for the securities, etc etc., just as any other brokerage account. You cannot rely solely on the information on the 1099 anyway, since it doesn't include many things you have to take into account for your Federal tax return as well, wash sales (inter-brokerage) being the most obvious example. As to what happens when you're 65 - you'll have to keep track, again, of all the taxes paid, and track your California basis in the account, and your Federal basis in the account, and they will not be  the same. Reconciliation time again when you get there. What a mess. If you move to another state - the taxes you paid to CA are ""lost"".  Similarly, if you move in to California, all the gains prior to moving in are not taxed by California. Whatever happens after - is taxed by CA as if it was a regular investment account."

negative: Transferring money you own from one place to another pretty much never has tax implications. It might have other implications, including requirement to report it. Being a US citizen has tax implications, including the requirement to file US tax forms for the rest of eternity.

negative: Having 401k or HSA is not income and doesn't trigger filing requirements. Withdrawing from 401k or HSA does. Also, in some States, HSA gains are taxed as investment income, so if you have gains in an HSA and you're a resident of such a State - you'll need to file a State tax return and pay taxes on the gains.

negative: From the UK-USA tax treaty.... ARTICLE 1 General Scope 1. Except as specifically provided herein, this Convention is applicable only to persons who are residents of one or both of the Contracting States. 2. This Convention shall not restrict in any manner any benefit now or hereafter accorded: a) by the laws of either Contracting State; or b) by any other agreement between the Contracting States... I'm not an expert but to me that sounds like the tax free advantage of an UK ISA would be respected by the IRS From the UK-USA tax treaty.... ARTICLE 7 7. Where under any provision of this Convention income or gains arising in one of the Contracting States are relieved from tax in that Contracting State and, under the law in force in the other Contracting State, a person, in respect of the said income or gains, is subject to tax by reference to the amount thereof which is remitted to or received in that other Contracting State and not by reference to the full amount thereof, then the relief to be allowed under this Convention in the first-mentioned Contracting State shall apply only to so much of the income or gains as is taxed in the other Contracting State. This is very difficult to comprehend but suggets also that tax free status is upheld in the uSa

negative: If working in NY - you pay NY taxes. If living in NJ - you pay NJ taxes. If NJ taxes are lower than NY taxes - you lose the difference by paying NY taxes vs paying NJ taxes if you have an option of having the same work and the same salary in NJ. Pretty simple, really. Generally, salaries in NY are a bit higher to compensate for that.


query: What are my chances at getting a mortgage with Terrible credit but High income

positive: With bad credit but good income, I would simply save a large down payment. You're much more likely to get a mortgage with 25% down and a history of recently saving that 25% to show.

positive: I also am paying roughly twice as much in rent as a mortgage payment would be on the type of house I have been looking at, so I'd really like to purchase a house if possible. Sounds like I need to rain on your parade a bit: there's a lot more to owning a house than the mortgage. Property tax, insurance, PMI, and maintenance are things that throw this off. You'll also be paying more interest than normal given your recent credit history. It's still possible that buying is better than renting, but one really should run the detailed math on this. For example, looking at houses around where I live, insurance, property tax and special assessments over the course of a year roughly equal the mortgage payments annually.  You probably won't be able to get a loan just yet. If you've just started your new job it will take a while to build a documentable income history sufficient for lenders. But take heart! As you take the next year to save up a down payment / build up an emergency fund you'll discover that credit score improves with time. However, it's crucial that you don't do anything to mess with the score. Pay all your bills on time. Don't take out a car loan. Don't close your old revolving accounts. But most of all, don't worry. Rent hurts (I rent too) but in many parts of the US owning hurts more, as your property values fall. A house down the street from my dear old mother has been on the market for several months at a price 33 percent lower than her most recent appraisals. I'm comfortable waiting until markets stabilize / start rising before jumping on real estate.

positive: First step, pull a copy of your credit report, and score. You should monitor that score and do what you can to bring it up. Your chances are far better if (a) you first save a sizable downpayment, and (b) go with a local bank that doesn't just write the mortgage and sell it. Better still, go to that local bank and inquire about REO (real estate owned by the bank) property. These are properties they foreclosed on and depending how they are carrying them, you might find decent opportunities. As a matter of logic, a local bank that owns these specific properties (as compared to debt pools where big banks have piles of paper owned fractionally) are more willing to get a new owner in and paying a new loan.  Congrats on the new, higher, income. I'd suggest you first build the emergency fund before the downpayment fund. Let us know how it goes.

positive: "The bottom line, is that you are doing the right thing now:  correcting your past indiscretions.  Get those collections taken care of, then start saving for a down payment.  Of course, during this time, you should pay your bills early or on time. During that time your credit will improve dramatically. I bet that this will not be an issue once you have your down payment saved, so the point is moot.   However, with outstanding collections it is very unlikely you will get a loan.  In my own case, I had to pay a collection, that I did not owe, in order to obtain a mortgage.  It was for a small amount and the loan officer told me that ""it is the cost of doing business"".  Ship $150 and my loan when through free and clear."

negative: My realtor told me that even though they're only asking for 1/2    the money and have excellent credit that the mortgage company may   not lend it to them if I'm over priced. Is this true? I've never heard of it before. It is a chance, but it is a red herring to the discussion. Having excellent credit has nothing to do with being eligible for a debt object of a specific size. Just because you have excellent credit, would you get approved for a property of $10,000,000 if you only made $35,000 a year (and had no other net worth)? But regarding your potential buyers, a chance vs a good chance is different. Your realtor just told you some basic always true lending fact that has nothing to do with your situation.

negative: On $4K/mo gross about $1000/mo can go to the mortgage, and at today's rates, that's about $200K of mortgage the bank might lend you.  Income is qualified based on gross, not net, so if $48,000/yr is wrong, please scale my guesstimate down a bit. In the end, today's rates allow a mortgage of nearly 4X one's gross income. This is too high, in my opinion. I'm answering what the bank would approve you at, not what I think is wise. Wise, in my opinion is 2.5-3X one's income, tops.

negative: 8 hard inquiries spread over two years is not a negative factor, with a score of 750. Real question #1: How much of your credit limits are you currently using? Less than 30% of your credit limits is good. Less than 15% is even better, 10% is great You don't need to wait X amount of days after applying for a mortgage or a card to increase your chances of getting approved for something else. You do need to be conscious of how many hard pulls you have done in a reporting period though, but again as I said, 8 spread over two years is not a whole lot. Real question #2: What negative things do you have in your credit history? Young age, income, delinquent payments, bankruptcies, low limits? Some of these negative factors are catch-22's (low limits, young age = low limits because of age and young credit history)  but these contribute to how much institutions would be willing to lend you

negative: Generally speaking the lower credit score trumps.  In the case you cite, the lower credit score will prevail.  However, you may need to do exactly that in order to qualify for the loan income wise.   There are two factors when obtaining a mortgage, really all loans, but more so with a mortgage:  the likeliness to repay (credit score),  and your ability to service the debt.  This last one is a combination of income and debt-to-income ratio. If you don't have enough income to qualify for the loan or fail to meet the debt to income ration, you may have to use your GF's income to qualify despite her poor credit. You might want to see past posts about buying property with non-spouses.  It could work, but generally it requires a lot of legal work before closing on the deal.  Avoiding this will lead to tales of woe.

negative: No, it is never impossible to get credit so long as there are no price controls or quotas. In most of the United States, the impetus for housing is so strong that it's one sector of credit that has nearly no price regulation, price in this case being interest rates. Corporate banks will not touch you now because Dodd-Frank now makes them liable to you and investors if you default on the mortgage.  Also, Fannie & Freddie, who ultimately finance most mortgages in the US now require banks to buy back loans if they fail, so banks are only financing the most creditworthy. All is not lost because markets are like rivers if not fully dammed: they find a way through. In your case, you can get a fully-financed mortgage if you're willing to pay interest rates probably double what you could otherwise get in the market with good credit. If the foreclosure process is quick and benefits the lender more in your state, the interest rate will be even lower. Your creditors will most likely be individuals you find at mortgage investment clubs and religious institutions.  If you shop around, you'll be surprised at how low a rate you might get. Also, since the cost of your prospective home is so low, it's very easy for an investor flush with cash and few investments to take a flier on a mother committed to her children who only needs $50,000. The FHA has been vastly expanded, and since your individual credit is clean, there may be a chance to get financing through it, but be prepared for red tape.

negative: There are several things that are missing from your estimate: The terms for the mortgage for a rental property will be different. You may be required to have a larger down payment. When approving you for the mortgage they will not count all the rental income as income, they will assume periodic vacancies. This difference may impact other credit you will be getting in the near future.

negative: You probably won't get a mortgage. UDSA has a 41% ratio of monthly debt to monthly income limit, and a score of 660 or better. A 250,000 mortgage at current rates for 30 year mortgage is about $1560/mo. (included in this figure is the 1% mortgage insurance premium, the .4% annual fee, the current rate for a 660 credit rating, the 2% points fee added at the front of the mortgage, typical closing cost added to transaction, and the .5% fee for over-mortgage insurance for the first 3 years since your mortgage will be higher than the value of the house due to these additional fees) Credit card payments = $120 ($60 times 2) Car payments = $542 ($271 for your car, $271 for the car you will be getting) Student loan = $50/month Child Support = $500/month Total = $2772/month Your income per month is 82000/12 = $6833/month $2772/$6833 = 40.6%...  This is awfully close to the limit, so they likely would also look at your ability to save.  Not seeing savings in the above example, I assume it is low.  USDA site One mortgage help site breaks down some of the requirements into layman's language. Not knowing your exact location (county/state) and how many children you have, it is hard to be sure whether you make too much to qualify.  This link shows the income limits by number of people in the house and the county/state.  There are few places in which you could be living that would qualify you to any of their programs unless you have a several children. As others have posted, I suggest you get your debt down.

negative: I notice that a lot happened four months ago. You were denied credit twice. Your income went up from $20k to $60k. I'm wondering if you were denied credit based on your $20k income. Since you couldn't provide proof of your income I wonder if they used $0 for your income.  Debt to income ratio is one significant factor included in the credit score calculation. You may not have a lot of debt, but if you don't have any income even a few hundred dollars on a credit card would throw your debt to income ratio into a panic. I'm assuming that your change from $20k to $60k income involved a change of jobs. Perhaps now you can provide proof of income. You would certainly need to do that before being approved for a mortgage.  Well that's my two cents about what may (or may not) have gone wrong last time. As for what to do next I would agree that the most helpful thing you could do is check your credit score and fix any errors that might negatively impact your credit score. (There might also be non-errors that need addressed such as open credit accounts that you thought you had closed.) When building credit history, time is on your side. If you just go on living your life and paying your bills promptly, your credit will slowly climb to an acceptable level. Unfortunately in the time frame you mentioned (~1 year) there isn't really enough time to build it significantly.  You bring up a valid point about credit applications reducing your credit score. Of course, that effect is somewhat minimal and temporary (2 yrs according to the thread linked to above). But again 1 year is not enough to recover. If you're considering applying for additional credit as a means to improve your credit score it may be too late to reap the benefits before your mortgage application. Of course if you could pay off any debts, that would help your debt to income ratio. But it would also reduce any house down payment you could save up and thereby increase the amount of your mortgage.  Better just save those pennies (or preferably Washingtons and Benjamins) to put toward a down payment.

negative: $100K of mortgage debt at 4%, 30 years will result in a $477/mo mortgage. It would take about $23K in income to have 25% of the monthly income cover the mortgage.  This means, that with no other large debts, a bank will lend you about 4X your income.  If, instead of 25%, we decided that having 20% of income go to the mortgage, the ratio drops to just over 3X.  In the end, it comes down to keshlam's advice regarding a budget. I think the question can't be answered as asked, given the fact that you offer no numbers. For the average person, credit card debt, student loans, and cars payments add up to enough to chip away at the amount the bank will lend you. Since (per one of the linked questions) the maximum debt service should be 36%, you start with that and subtract all current payments.  If this doesn't suffice, let us know what, exactly you're looking for .

negative: A $500K mortgage at 4.5% is $2533, right near the $2500 in your example. Interest the first year would be less than $22K, and your tax benefit (taking littleadv's answer into account, of course) would be $5500, max.  The tax benefit is the least of the reasons to get a mortgage. On your hypothetical $100K income, and too-high mortgage, a $5500 benefit is nothing. If one needs this tax benefit to make the numbers work, they are budgeted too tightly.  If you are considering trading a $1000 rent for a $500K mortgage with a $2500 payment, I'd look very carefully at the numbers. Search this board for the associated expenses of homeownership.

negative: What are the risks, if any The risks are exemplified by the outcomes presented on this website, including: There's a chance you will end up paying large mortgage payments on a house occupied by an ex-friend and paying large amounts of money to lawyers to try and get things straightened out. You could come out of it a lot poorer and with your credit rating wrecked.

negative: "In some cases, it might be rational to pay low-interest debt first, because the consequences of defaulting on that debt are worse.   Consider this simplified example.  Suppose you have two debts: a low-interest mortgage, secured by your house, and a high-interest unsecured credit card debt, both of which are within a few years of being paid off.  There is a chance that sometime between now and then, something will happen to disrupt your income (e.g. medical problems), and it won't be possible to make the payments on either loan.   Defaulting on the credit card loan will result in a lower credit score and calls from collection agencies.  Defaulting on the mortgage will result in the foreclosure or forced sale of your house, at best forcing you to move, and at worst leaving you homeless, at a time when you are also facing other (e.g. medical) problems.  So you might rationally judge that losing your house is much worse than bad credit.  Therefore, you might rationally conclude that it would be better to direct extra income toward paying down the mortgage, to increase the chances that, if and when an income disruption might occur, the mortgage would already be paid off.  In other words, you shorten the window of time where income disruption results in foreclosure. You might decide that this increased security is worth the extra interest you will pay, compared to the strategy where you pay the high-interest loan first. This is a fairly special situation, but you asked ""Why might it be a good idea to do this?"", and I am just giving an example where it could rationally be considered a good idea.   (Of course, in a real-life version of this example, there might be other options available, such as refinancing the mortgage.  If you like, you could imagine a more extreme example where the lower-interest debt is owed to Joey Knuckles the loanshark, who will come and break your kneecaps if you miss a payment.)"

negative: "Your lack of numbers makes the question a difficult read.  What I'm hearing is ""I want a house requiring a mortgage 8X my income.""  This alone is enough to suggest it's a bad deal. On a personal note, when my wife and I bought our house, it was 2.5X our income. 20% down, so the mortgage was exactly 2X income. And my wife was convinced we were in over our heads.  The use of a partner who will take a portion of the profit is interesting, but doesn't change the fact that you are proposing to live in a house that costs far too much for you. If you are determined to buy such a house, I'd suggest you do it with the plan to rent out a room or two to roommates. If you are living in an area where the cost of buying is so high, the demand for rentals is likely high as well.  Absent a plan to bring ion more income, I see no good coming from this. Heed the warnings posted in the other two answers as well."

negative: I have the mortgage from Lender A. Can I get a HELOC from Lender B? Yes. Do banks pull my credit to approve a HELOC account? Yes. How is it reported to the credit bureaus and how does it affect my credit (Let's say my limit is $30k and I use all of $30k)?  It is reported as HELOC and the current balance. Similar to credit cards (in fact, some banks report it exactly as credit cards). Anything unique about it's tax deduction? Same as mortgage, except that the limit is $100K unless used for home improvement. Anything else to watch out for? LTV - Loan to Value. This is the ratio of your overall home value to the indebtedness secured by the home. Currently, your LTV is 93% (you have 7% equity). For HELOC, most banks require the LTV, including the HELOC, not to exceed 75%. So the chances you'll get a HELOC are pretty slim.

negative: "You really don't know how credit scoring works. Let's think about the purpose of a credit score: to assess whether you're a high default risk. A lender wants to know, in this order: Utilization factors into the solvency assessment. If you are at 100% utilization of your unsecured credit, you're insolvent -- you can't pay your bills. If you are at 0%, you're as solvent as you can be. Most people who use credit cards are somewhere in the middle. When a bank underwrites a large loan like a mortgage or car loan, they use your credit score an application information like income and employment history to figure out what kind of loan you qualify for. Credit cards are called ""revolving"" accounts for a reason -- you're supposed to use them to buy crap and pay your bill in full at the end of the month.  My advice to you:"

negative: "I guess I don't understand how you figure that taking out a car loan for $20k will result in adding $20k in equity.  A car loan is a liability, not an asset like your $100k in cash.  Besides, you don't get a dollar-for-dollar consideration when figuring a car's value against the loan it is encumbered by.  In other words, the car is only worth what someone's willing to pay for it, not what your loan amount on it is. Remember that taking on a loan will increase your debt-to-income ratio, which is always a factor when trying to obtain a mortgage.  At the same time, taking on new debt just prior to shopping for a mortgage could make it more difficult to find a lender.  Every time a credit report (hard inquiry) is run on you, it temporarily impacts your credit score.  The only exception to this rule is when it comes to mortgages.  In the U.S., the way it works is that once you start shopping for a mortgage with lenders, for the next 30 days, additional inquiries into your credit report for purposes of mortgage funding do not count against your credit score, so it's a ""freebie"" in a way.  You can't use this to shop for any other kind of credit, but the purpose is to allow you a chance to shop for the best mortgage rate you can get without adversely impacting your credit. In the end, my advice is to stop looking at how much house you can buy, and instead focus on a house with payments you can live with and afford.  Trying to buy the most house based on what someone's willing to lend you leaves no room in the near-term for being able to borrow if the property has some repair needs, you want to furnish/upgrade it, or for any other unanticipated need which may arise that requires credit.  Don't paint yourself into a corner.  Just because you can borrow big doesn't mean you should borrow big. I hope this helps. Good luck!"

negative: Utilization is near real-time. What that means is that what is reported is what is taken in terms of debt-to-income (DTI) ratios. When a mortgage broker pulls your credit, they will pull the latest balances with the minimum payments. This is what is taken to determine DTI along with your gross monthly income. If you do not pay your account in full before the statement date, then you more than likely will have to wait an additional statement cycle before it reports to the credit bureaus. Therefore, your utilization is dynamic and the history of your utilization month-to-month is not recorded forever. Only the current balance. What is maintained and reported is your payment history. So you want to never be late if you want to be approved anytime soon for a mortgage. A lower DTI will not help your interest rate. As long as you stay away from the maximum DTI for the mortgage vehicle you are attempting to be approved for (VA, FHA, Conventional, etc), then your DTI should not be a concern. If you are borderline at the time of underwriting, you can take the opportunity and pay off the balances. The mortgage company can then do what is called a credit supplement which entails contacting those lenders where you have proven you have a zero balance and manually input the zero balance cards, that have not yet reported to the bureaus, in your final application to the mortgage company for underwriting approval.

negative: They will include the rental income into the calculation. They don't give you a 100% credit for the income because they have to factor that you might have a gap between tenants.  Years ago they only credited me with 66% of the expected monthly income.  Example: This expense was then supposed to come from the 10% of my income that was allocated for monthly non-principal mortgage loans, e.g student loan, auto loan, credit card debt...

negative: It's not typically possible for someone to jointly own the house, who is not also jointly liable for the mortgage. This doesn't matter however, because it is possible for two people to get a mortgage together, where only one person's income is assessed by the lender. If that person could get a mortgage of that amount on their own, then the couple should also be able to get the same mortgage. Source: My wife and I got a mortgage like this. She is self-employed, rather than meet the very high requirements for proving her self-employment income, we simply said that we only wanted my income to be taken into consideration.

negative: The short answer is, with limited credit, your best bet might be an FHA loan for first time buyers.  They only require 3.5% down (if I recall the number right), and you can qualify for their loan programs with a credit score as low as 580. The problem is that even if you were to add new credit lines (such as signing up for new credit cards, etc.), they still take time to have a positive effect on your credit.  First, your score takes a bit of a hit with each new hard inquiry by a prospective creditor, then your score will dip slightly when a new credit account is first added. While your credit score will improve somewhat within a few months of adding new credit and you begin to show payment history on those accounts, your average age of accounts needs to be two years or older for the best effect, assuming you're making all of the payments on time. A good happy medium is to have between 7 and 10 credit lines on your credit history, and to make sure it's a mix of account types, such as store cards, installment loans, and credit cards, to show that you can handle various types of credit. Be careful not to add TOO much credit, because it affects your debt-to-income ratio, and that will have a negative effect on your ability to obtain mortgage financing. I really suggest that you look at some of the sites which offer free credit scores, because some of them provide great advice and tips on how to achieve what you're trying to do.  They also offer credit score simulators, which can help you understand how your score might change if, for instance, you add new credit cards, pay off existing cards, or take on installment loans.  It's well worth checking out. I hope this helps.  Good luck!

negative: Something else is going on here. Rates are high for a specific reason, possible due to the house being non-conforming (ie, trailer/pre fab housing?)  Higher downpayment won't help.  Go to LendingTree.com and have a ton of offers spammed at you. With 20% down + conforming you should be around 4.5%.

negative: I am 17 and currently have a loan out for a car. My parents also have terrible credit, and because I knew this I was able to get around it. Your co-signer on your loan does not have to be your parent, at least in Wisconsin, I used my grandmother, who has excellent credit, as my cosigner. With my loan, we had made it so it doesn't hurt her credit if I don't get my payments in on time, maybe this is something for you to look into.

negative: I'm a bond trader and we stayed away from this Tesla deal. Tesla is cash flow negative which is a terrible sign for a bond investor and is still relatively young and changing constantly. When assessing fixed income investments you want steady predictable cash flows and positive credit metrics. Tesla has none of that despite the run up in the stock. Even after taking all of these things into consideration the yields aren't even very high reflecting a compression in the amount of spread to treasuries investors are asking for taking on the risk in this kind of name. It speaks to an overvalued high yield market in general.  Ford on the other hand is a mature business with much more favorable credit metrics (debt interest coverage, consistent management, a credit history of borrowing and repaying their loans, etc.). All of these things are reflected in the yield that investors require when buying bonds.

negative: "TL;DR:  It doesn't matter.  At a point of sufficient credit score, your income is far more important, for loan approval, than your credit score. Apparently this was a big mistake because it caused my score to drop to 744 Not really, except for the questionability of opening a margin account.  A credit score of 744 is sufficient for the best rates. Credit score algorithms are dynamic and advice that may have been good in years past may not be applicable today.  Pay your bills and don't have unnecessary credit, that will lead to your best credit score.   For me, despite not following conventional wisdom, I am ""enjoying"" the highest credit score of my life.  I have closed accounts that are just unnecessary and have done some other things that the experts say I should not do to keep a high credit score. However, all that doesn't matter.  I do not have a need for credit and will likely never have a need beyond my rebate card.  I feel like this is also true for you.  What difference does it make if you have an 822 or a 744?  Probably none.  At that point, your income counts more toward loan eligibility."

negative: That's not especially high income, and while I can't speak for Canadians,  most of us south of the border just pay the tax. There are tax-advantged retirement savings plans, and charitable donations are often offset by a tax credit, and there are some tax incentives for mortgages, and so on.. but generally the right answer is to just accept that the income tax money was never yours to begin with.

negative: It is important to consider your overall financial goals (especially in the 3-5 year range). If you have another financial goal which cannot be met without that additional money then meeting that financial goal might take priority over what I am about to say. Your mortgage rate is another important factor to consider when answering this question. Extra mortgage payments are equivalent to investing that money in a VERY low risk investment with an equivalent yield of the mortgage rate because you will be paying that much less per year in interest. (Actually, when you consider that mortgage interest is often tax-deductible the equivalent yield should be reduced by your income tax rate.) Typically it is not possible to find such a low risk investment with a yield as high as your mortgage rate. For example current mortgage rates are over twice as high as the yield of a one year CD.  Also keep in mind that additional mortgage payments help you build equity. This equity will most likely be applied to your next home purchase. If so their effect will be in place throughout the life of your next mortgage too.

negative: "Jack ""The Mortgage Professor"" Guttentag provides a thorough analysis of a similar-sounding system: In addition, I had the feeling that customers of Mortgage Relief should have gotten a spreadsheet for their $45, and wondered why they hadn’t? So I set out to develop a spreadsheet of my own that could quantify the benefits – if there were any. The major question I wanted the spreadsheet to answer was, how large is the benefit of using the Mortgage Relief scheme if you don’t have any surplus income but only just enough to make the scheduled payment? This is the critical question because we know that if you use surplus income to make extra payments to principal, you pay down the mortgage more quickly. This is so whether you apply the income directly to the mortgage, as most borrowers do, or whether you follow the Mortgage Relief procedure where you use a credit line to pay down the mortgage and current income to pay down the credit line. I spent much of my air time between Philadelphia and San Francisco on this project, and finally gave it up. Once I removed surplus income from the equation, I could not find a way to make the Mortgage Relief scheme work. You may also want to read related articles by Guttentag:"

negative: "Yes, it can be a good idea to close unused credit cards.  I am going to give some reasons why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts, and then I will talk about why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea. Why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts ""I'd like to close the cards.""  That is reason enough.   Simplifying your financial life is a good thing.  Fewer accounts let you focus your energy on the accounts that you actually use. Unused accounts still need to be monitored for fraud. You mentioned that you have high credit card balances that you are carrying.  This may indicate that you have trouble using credit responsibly, and having more credit available to you might be a temptation for you. If these unused cards have annual fees, keeping them open will cost money. Unused cards sometimes get closed by the bank due to inactivity.  As a result, the advice often given is that, in addition to not closing them, you are supposed to charge something to it every month.  This, of course, takes more of your time and energy to worry about, as well as giving you another monthly bill to pay. Why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea to close unused accounts Other answers will tell you that it may hurt your credit score for two reasons: it would increase your utilization and lower your average account age.  Before we talk about the validity of these two points, we need to discuss the importance of the credit score. Depending on what your credit score currently is, these actions may have minimal impact on your life.  If you are in the mid 700's or higher, your score is excellent, and closing these cards will likely not impact anything for you in a significant way. If you aren't that high in your score yet, do you have an immediate need for a high score?  Are you planning on getting more credit cards, or take out any more loans?  I would suggest that, since you have credit card debt, you shouldn't be taking out any new loans until you get that cleaned up.  So your score in the mean time is not very important. Are you currently working on eliminating this credit card debt?  If so, your utilization number will improve, even after you close these accounts, when you get those paid off.  Utilization has only a temporary effect on your score; when your utilization improves, your score improves immediately. Your average account age may or may not improve when you close these accounts, depending on how old they are compared to the accounts you are leaving open.  However, the impact of this might not be as much as you think. I realize that this advice is different from other answers, or other things that you may read online.  But in my own life, I do a lot of things that are supposedly bad for the credit score: I only have two credit cards, ages 2.5 and 1.5 years.  (I closed my other cards when I got these.)  My typical monthly utilization is around 25% on these cards, although I pay off the balance in full each month, never paying interest.  I have no car loan anymore, and my mortgage is only 4 months old.  No other debt.  Despite those ""terrible"" credit practices, my credit score is very high. Conclusion Make your payments on time, get out of debt, and your score will be fine.  Don't keep unwanted accounts open just because someone told you that you should."

negative: One possible route is to try to have no credit. This is different than bad credit. If you build up a good downpayment (20%), a number of banks would do manual underwriting for you.

negative: A lender will look at three things when giving a loan: Income. Do you make enough money each month to afford the payments. They will subtract from your income any other loans, credit card debt, student loan debt, mortgage. They will also figure in your housing costs. Your Collateral. For a mortgage the collateral is the house, for a car loan it is the car. They will only give you a loan to a specific percentage of the value of the collateral. Your money in the bank isn't collateral, but it can serve as a down payment on the loan.  Your Credit score. This is a measure of how well you handle credit. The longer the history the better. Using credit wisely is better than not using the credit you have.  If you don't have a credit card, get one. Start with your current bank. You have a history with them. If they won't help you join a credit union. Another source of car loans is the auto dealer. Though their rates can be high. Make sure that the purchase price doesn't require a monthly payment too high for your income. Good rules of thumb for monthly payments are 25% for housing and 10% for all other loans combined. Even a person with perfect credit can't get a loan for more than the bank thinks they can afford. Note: Don't drain all your savings, you will need it to pay for the unexpected expenses in life. You might think you have enough cash to pay off the student loan or to make a big down payment, but you don't want to stretch yourself too thin.

negative: That seems a little high in my experience.  I've used a home equity line of credit instead, as the rates are much lower (~3.5%).

negative: "You are asking if getting a mortgage nearly 4X your income has the potential to make you ""house poor"". $2500 Of your $9000 gross is not too much according to the bank, but the bank only looks at a few ratios, not your entire budget. Is this house appropriate for your needs? At 3X the median home price, are you reaching too high? Note - this board has had multiple ""budget"" discussions recently. For many people, the mortgage is just where the trouble starts. The other house related budget items just multiply up to make things worse."