query: Can capital expenses for volunteer purposes be deducted from income?

positive: I would suggest to buy your own printer, and calculate the cost for a page including the wear to the printer. Then either deduce these printing expenses, or ask the charity to reimburse you. This is not much different than when you would go to a copyshop, those easily charge 10-30c per page, with your own printer you can probably get it around 5-10c per page, including paper, toner, drum, and amortization. The advantage is that when you do use the printer for other purposes, you wont get into any problems with who owns the printer or deductions.

positive: To be safe you should donate the printer to the charity. Or even better, have the charity purchase it and you donate a equivalent number of dollars directed towards purchasing the equipment. Once your wife no longer volunteers with the charity it should be returned to the charity because they own it.

positive: Costs for home / small business equipment under US$10,000 don't have to  be capitalized. They can be expensed (that is, claimed as an expense all in one year.)  Unless this printer is one of those behemoths that collates, folds, staples, and mails medium-sized booklets, it cost less than that. Keep track of your costs. Ask the charity to pay you those costs for the product you generate, and then donate that amount of money back to them. This will be good for the charity because they'll correctly account for the cost of printing.

negative: In the US there's no significant difference between what a business can deduct and what an individual can deduct. However, you can only deduct what is an expense to produce income. Businesses are allowed to write off salaries, but individuals can't   write off what they pay their gardener or maid (at least in the US) If you're a sole proprietor in the business of managing properties - you can definitely deduct payments to gardeners or maids. Business paying for a gardener on a private property not related to producing the income (like CEO's daughter's house) cannot deduct that expense for tax purposes (although it is still recorded in the business accounting books as an expense - with no tax benefit). Businesses are allowed to deduct utility expenses as overhead, individuals cannot Same thing exactly. I can deduct utility expenses for my rental property, but not for my primary residence. Food, shelter, clothing and medical care are fundamental human needs,   but we still pay for them with after-tax money, and pay additional   sales tax. Only interest (and not principal) on a mortgage is   deductible in the US, which is great for people who take out mortgages   (and helps banks get more business, I'm sure), but you're out of luck   if you pay cash for your house, or are renting. Sales taxes are deductible. You can deduct sales taxes you paid during the year if you itemize your deduction. You can chose - you either deduct the sales taxes or the State income taxes, whatever is more beneficial for you. BTW in many states food and medicine are exempt from sales tax. Medical expenses are deductible if they're significant compared to your total income. You can deduct medical expenses in excess of 10% of your AGI. With the ACA kicking in - I don't see how would people even get to that. If your AGI is low you get subsidies for insurance, and the insurance keeps your expenses capped. For self-employed and employed, insurance premiums are pre-tax (i.e.: not even added to your AGI). Principle for mortgage is not deductible because it is not an expense - it is equity. You own an asset, don't you? You do get the standard deduction, even if your itemized (real) deductions are less - business don't get that. You also get an exemption amount (for your basic living needs), which businesses don't get. You can argue about the amounts - but it is there. In some States (like California) renters get tax breaks for renting, depending on the AGI. CA renters credit is phasing out at AGI of about $60K, which is pretty high.

negative: "Your corporation would file a corporate income tax return on an annual basis. One single month of no revenue doesn't mean much in that annual scheme of things. Total annual revenue and total annual expenses are what impact the results. In other words, yes, your corporation can book revenues in (say) 11 of 12 months of the year but still incur expenses in all months. Many seasonal businesses operate this way and it is perfectly normal. You could even just have, say, one super-awesome month and spend money the rest of the year. Heck, you could even have zero revenue but still incur expenses—startups often work like that at first. (You'd need investment funding, personal credit, a loan, or retained earnings from earlier profitable periods to do that, of course.) As long as your corporation has a reasonable expectation of a profit and the expenses your corporation incurs are valid business expenses, then yes, you ought to be able to deduct those expenses from your revenue when figuring taxes owed, regardless of whether the expenses were incurred at the same approximate time as revenue was booked—as long as the expense wasn't the acquisition of a depreciable asset. Some things your company would buy—such as the computer in your example—would not be fully deductible in the year the expense is incurred. Depreciable property expenses are deducted over time according to a schedule for the kind of property. The amount of depreciation expense you can claim for such property each year is known as Capital Cost Allowance. A qualified professional accountant can help you understand this. One last thing: You wrote ""write off"". That is not the same as ""deduct"". However, you are forgiven, because many people say ""write off"" when they actually mean ""deduct"" (for tax purposes). ""Write off"", rather, is a different accounting term, meaning where you mark down the value of an asset (e.g. a bad loan that will never be repaid) to zero; in effect, you are recognizing it is now a worthless asset. There can be a tax benefit to a write-off, but what you are asking about are clearly expense deductions and not write-offs. They are not the same thing, and the next time you hear somebody using ""write off"" when they mean ""deduction"", please correct them."

negative: "Books would be considered Personal-Use Property according to Canada's income tax laws.  The most detailed IT I was able to find is IT-332R, which says: GAINS AND LOSSES 3. A gain on the disposition of personal-use property is normally a capital gain within the meaning of paragraph 39(1)(a). Where the property is a principal residence, the gain > is computed under paragraph 40(2)(b) or (c). 4. Under subparagraph 40(2)(g)(iii), a loss on a disposition of personal-use property, other than listed personal property, is deemed to be nil. [...] This part of the bulletin indicates that a gain might be considered a capital gain - not income.  However, you don't get to book a loss as a capital loss.  This is the first hint that your book sale - which is actually an exempt capital loss - shouldn't go on your tax return unless it's one of the ""listed"" items: LISTED PERSONAL PROPERTY 7. Listed personal property is defined in paragraph 54(e) to mean personal-use property that is all or any portion of, or any interest in or right to, any (a) print, etching, drawing, painting, sculpture, or other similar work of art, (b) jewellery, (c) rare folio, rare manuscript, or rare book, (d) stamp, or (e) coin. So unless you're selling rare books, the disposition (sale) of them is essentially exempt as income, regardless of whether you sold it at a profit or at a loss.  If it is rare, then you might be able to consider it a capital loss, which doesn't help you much unless you had other capital gains, but you can carry over capital losses to future years. There's also a newer IT related to hobbies and ""collecting"" items, IT-334R2.  This one says: 11. In order for any activity or pursuit to be regarded as a source of income, there must be a reasonable expectation of profit. Where such an expectation does not exist (as is the case with most hobbies), neither amounts received nor expenses incurred are included in the income computation for tax purposes and any excess of expenses over receipts is a personal or living expense, the deduction of which is denied by paragraph 18(1)(h). On the other hand, if the hobby or pastime results in receipts of revenue in excess of expenses, that fact is a strong indication that the hobby is a venture with an expectation of profit; if so, the net income may be taxable as income from a business. The current version of IT-504, Visual Artists and Writers, discusses the concept of ""a reasonable expectation of profit"" in greater detail. Where a hobby consists of collecting personal-use property or listed personal property, dispositions should be accounted for as described in the current version of IT-332, Personal-Use Property. (emphasis mine) In other words, if it's not the type of thing where you'd make a tax deduction when you bought it in the first place, then you clearly don't need to report it as income when you sell it. Just to be absolutely clear here: The fact that you are selling them at a loss is not actually what's important here. What's important is that, if the books aren't collectibles, then you would have had no expectation of profit.  If you did have that expectation then you could have made a tax deduction when you first purchased them. So in this case, it is probably not necessary for you to report the income; however, for the benefit of other readers, in some cases you might need to report it under ""other income"" or book it as a capital gain/loss, depending on what those personal items are and whether or not you made a net profit."

negative: "For simplicity, let's start by just considering cash back. In general, cash back from credit cards for personal use is not taxable, but for business use it is taxable (sort of, I'll explain later). The reason is most personal purchases are made with after tax dollars; you typically aren't deducting the cost of what you purchased from your personal income, so if you purchase something that costs $100 and you receive $2 back from the CC company, effectively you have paid $98 for that item but that wouldn't affect your tax bill. However, since businesses typically deduct most expenses, that same $100 deduction would have only been a $98 deduction for business tax purposes, so in this case the $2 should be accounted for. Note, you should not consider that $2 as income though; that would artificially inflate your revenue. It should be treated as a negative expense, similar to how you would handle returning an item you purchased and receiving a CC refund. Now for your specific questions: Part 1: As a small business owner, I wish to attend an annual seminar to improve my business. I have enough credit card reward points to cover the airfare, hotel, and rental car. Will those expenses still be deductible at the value displayed on the receipt? Effectively no, these expenses are not deductible. If you deduct them they will be completely counter-acted by the ""refund"" you receive for the payments. Part 2: Does it matter if those points are accrued on my personal credit card, rather than a business credit card? This is where it gets hairy. Suppose your company policy is that employees make purchases with their own personal credit cards and submit receipts for reimbursement. In this case the employer can simply reimburse and would not know or care if the employee is racking up rewards/points/cashback. The trick is, as the employee, you must always purchase business related items normally so you have receipts to show, and if you receive cashback on the side there seems to be a ""don't ask, don't tell"" rule that the IRS is OK with. It works the same way with heavy business travelers and airline miles- the free vacations those users get as perks are not treated as taxable income. However, I would not go out of my way to abuse this ""loophole"". Typically, things like travel (airfare, hotel, car rental, meals) are expected. But I wouldn't go purchase 100 company laptops on your personal card and ask the company to reimburse you. The company should purchase those 100 laptops on a company card and effectively reduce the sale price by the cashback received. (Or more realistically, negotiate a better discount with your account rep and just cut them a check.) Part 3: Would there be any difference between credit card points and brand-loyalty points? If the rental car were paid for with points earned directly on the rental car company's loyalty system (not a CC), would that yield a different result? There is no difference. Perhaps the simplest way to think about this is you can only deduct an expense that you actually incur. In other words, the expense should show up on a bank or CC statement. This is why when you volunteer and work 10 hours for a charity, you can't call that a ""donation"" of any amount of money because there is no actual payment made that would show up on a bank statement. Instead you could have billed the charity for your 10 hours of work, and then turned around and donated that same amount back to them, but it ends up being a wash."

negative: Graduating from college is probably one of the most fulfilling triumphs you’ll ever achieve in your entire life. However, that joy also brings bigger responsibilities in life that could affect tax time too. This specific time in your life will have a lot to offer and before the winds of change take you to wherever you dream of, here are some advices from [Southbourne Tax Group](http://www.thesouthbournegroup.com/) to make your taxes easier where you can get a refund during filing time and save money as well.  If your modified adjusted gross income is below $80,000 and you’re single, up to $2,500 of the interest portion of your student loan payments can be tax deductible, and below $160,000 for married person filing jointly.   Job hunting expenses can be tax deductible too but there are exceptions such as expenses involved in your search for a new job in a new career field and working full-time for the first time. Major tax breaks are expected in case you are moving to a new and different city for your first job.    Get a jump start on retirement savings with your company’s 401(k). Each year, you can secure up to $18,000 from your income taxes by contributing on one. If you have a family coverage, you could secure $6,750 from contributing to a health savings account in case you are enrolled in a high-deductible health plan. And if you are single, you can secure up to $3,400. Placing your money into a flexible spending account could keep an added $2,600 out of your taxable income.    Getting big deductions for business expenses is possible if you are planning to be a freelancer or to be your own boss as a new college graduate. Southbourne Group also advises saving at least 25% of what you’re earning for the IRS.   Research more about lifetime learning credit and understand its importance. You can claim up to $2,000 of a tax credit for post-secondary work at eligible educational institutions. This is possible if your adjusted gross income is below $65,000 as a single filer, or below $131,000 as a married person filing jointly.  Saving money has a lot of benefits and one of which is cutting your tax bill. If you’re a married person filing jointly and have an adjusted gross income of less than $62,000, you may qualify for the saver’s credit, while for a single filer, it should be below $31,000. That can reduce your tax bill by up to 50% of the first $2,000 if you’re a single filer, or $4,000 if you’re a married person filing jointly you contribute to an eligible retirement plan.   Southbourne Tax Group doesn’t want you to overspend on tax software and getting professional help in this regard. The firm suggests using the free packages from trusted tax software companies if your tax situation is quite simple. Get that professional help at Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program, which can help you meet with a pro at little or no cost.

negative: It looks like fair-market value when you receive your virtual currency is counted as income. And you're also subject to self-employment tax on that income. Here's an FAQ from the IRS: Q-8: Does a taxpayer who “mines” virtual currency (for example, uses   computer resources to validate Bitcoin transactions and maintain the   public Bitcoin transaction ledger) realize gross income upon receipt   of the virtual currency resulting from those activities? A-8: Yes,   when a taxpayer successfully “mines” virtual currency, the fair market   value of the virtual currency as of the date of receipt is includible   in gross income. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income,   for more information on taxable income.Q-9: Is an individual who   “mines” virtual currency as a trade or business subject to   self-employment tax on the income derived from those activities? A-9:   If a taxpayer’s “mining” of virtual currency constitutes a trade or   business, and the “mining” activity is not undertaken by the taxpayer   as an employee, the net earnings from self-employment (generally,   gross income derived from carrying on a trade or business less   allowable deductions) resulting from those activities constitute   selfemployment income and are subject to the self-employment tax. See   Chapter 10 of Publication 334, Tax Guide for Small Business, for more   information on selfemployment tax and Publication 535, Business   Expenses, for more information on determining whether expenses are   from a business activity carried on to make a profit. You'd of course be able to offset that income with the expense of mining the virtual currency, depreciation of dedicated mining equipment, electricity, not sure what else. Edit: Here's a good resource on filing taxes with Bitcoin: Filling in the 1040 Income from Bitcoins and all crypto-currencies is   declared as either capital gains income or ordinary income, for   example from mining. Income Ordinary income will be declared on either   your 1040 (line 21 - Other Income) for an individual, or within your   Schedule C, if you are self-employed or have sole-proprietor business.   Capital Gains Capital gains income, or losses, are declared on   Schedule D. Since there are no reported 1099 forms from Bitcoin   exchanges, you will need to include your totals with Box C checked for   short-term gains, and with Box F checked for long-term gains. Interesting notes from that article, your first example could actually be trickier than expected if you started mining before there was a Monero to USD exchange. Also, there can also be capital gains implications from using your virtual currency to buy goods, which sounds like a pain to keep track of.

negative: I'll add this to others: Having non-deductible portion in your IRA requires additional tax forms to be attached to your tax return, and tracking. If you plan to have long-term investments in your non-deductible IRA (such as, say, target funds or long-term stock positions that you expect to hold till retirement) it may be better to keep them in a non-IRA account. This is because the income tax on the withdrawals from the IRA is at ordinary rates, and from the regular investment account is at capital gains rate. While the rates can definitely change, traditionally capital gains rates are significantly lower than the ordinary income bracket rates. So generally I think that having non-deductible IRA deposits is only useful if you're planning a ROTH conversion in a near future.

negative: You are faced with a dilemma. If you use a 529 plan to fund your education, the short timeline of a few years will limit your returns that are tax free. Most people who use a 529 plan either purchase years of tuition via lump sum, when the child is young; or they  put aside money on a regular basis that will grow tax deferred/tax free. Some states do give a tax break when the contribution is made by a state taxpayer into a plan run by the state. The long term plans generally use a risk profile that starts off heavily weighted in stock when the child is young, and becomes more fixed income as the child reaches their high school years. The idea is to protect the fund from big losses when there is no time to recover. If you choose the plan with the least risk the issue is that the amount of gains that are being protected from federal tax is small. If you pick a more aggressive plan the risk is that the losses could be larger than the state tax savings. Look at some of the other tax breaks for tuition to see if you qualify Credits An education credit helps with the cost of higher education by   reducing the amount of tax owed on your tax return. If the credit   reduces your tax to less than zero, you may get a refund. There are   two education credits available: the American Opportunity Tax Credit   and the Lifetime Learning Credit. Who Can Claim an Education Credit? There are additional rules for each credit, but you must meet all   three of the following for either credit: If you’re eligible to claim the lifetime learning credit and are also   eligible to claim the American opportunity credit for the same student   in the same year, you can choose to claim either credit, but not both.   You can't claim the AOTC if you were a nonresident alien for any part   of the tax year unless you elect to be treated as a resident alien for   federal tax purposes. For more information about AOTC and foreign   students, visit American Opportunity Tax Credit - Information for   Foreign Students. Deductions Tuition and Fees Deduction You may be able to deduct qualified education expenses paid during the   year for yourself, your spouse or your dependent. You cannot claim   this deduction if your filing status is married filing separately or   if another person can claim an exemption for you as a dependent on his   or her tax return. The qualified expenses must be for higher   education. The tuition and fees deduction can reduce the amount of your income   subject to tax by up to $4,000. This deduction, reported on Form 8917,   Tuition and Fees Deduction, is taken as an adjustment to income. This   means you can claim this deduction even if you do not itemize   deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040). This deduction may be beneficial   to you if, for example, you cannot take the lifetime learning credit   because your income is too high. You may be able to take one of the education credits for your   education expenses instead of a tuition and fees deduction. You can   choose the one that will give you the lower tax.

negative: This very topic was the subject of a question on workplace SE https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/8996/what-can-relocation-assistance-entail TL/DR;  From tax publication 521 - Moving expenses table regarding how to report IF your Form W-2 shows... your entire reimbursement reported   as   wages in box 1         AND you have... moving expenses    THEN... file Form 3903 showing all allowable  expenses,* but do not   show any   reimbursements. There are tax implications Covered in tax publication 521 - Moving expenses and Employers tax guide to Fringe Benefits related to moving expenses. From the Employers View: Moving Expense Reimbursements This exclusion applies to any amount you directly or indirectly give to an employee, (including services furnished in kind) as payment for, or reimbursement of, moving expenses. You must make the reimbursement under rules similar to those described in chapter 11 of Publication 535 for reimbursement of expenses for travel, meals, and entertainment under accountable plans. The exclusion applies only to reimbursement of moving expenses that the employee could deduct if he or she had paid or incurred them without reimbursement. However, it does not apply if the employee actually deducted the expenses in a previous year.   Deductible moving expenses.   Deductible moving expenses include only the reasonable expenses of: Moving household goods and personal effects from the former home to the new home, and Traveling (including lodging) from the former home to the new home. Deductible moving expenses do not include any expenses for meals and must meet both the distance test and the time test. The distance test is met if the new job location is at least 50 miles farther from the employee's old home than the old job location was. The time test is met if the employee works at least 39 weeks during the first 12 months after arriving in the general area of the new job location. For more information on deductible moving expenses, see Publication 521, Moving Expenses. Employee.   For this exclusion, treat the following individuals as employees. A current employee. A leased employee who has provided services to you on a substantially full-time basis for at least a year if the services are performed under your primary direction or control. Exception for S corporation shareholders.   Do not treat a 2% shareholder of an S corporation as an employee of the corporation for this purpose. A 2% shareholder is someone who directly or indirectly owns (at any time during the year) more than 2% of the corporation's stock or stock with more than 2% of the voting power. Treat a 2% shareholder as you would a partner in a partnership for fringe benefit purposes, but do not treat the benefit as a reduction in distributions to the 2% shareholder. Exclusion from wages.   Generally, you can exclude qualifying moving expense reimbursement you provide to an employee from the employee's wages. If you paid the reimbursement directly to the employee, report the amount in box 12 of Form W-2 with the code “P.” Do not report payments to a third party for the employee's moving expenses or the value of moving services you provided in kind.  From the employees view: The not be included as income the expenses must be from an accountable plan: Accountable Plans To be an accountable plan, your employer's reimbursement arrangement must require you to meet all three of the following rules. Your expenses must have a business connection – that is, you must have paid or incurred deductible expenses while performing services as an employee of your employer. Two examples of this are the reasonable expenses of moving your possessions from your former home to your new home, and traveling from your former home to your new home. You must adequately account to your employer for these expenses within a reasonable period of time. You must return any excess reimbursement or allowance within a reasonable period of time. Also what is interesting is the table regarding how to report IF your Form W-2 shows... your entire reimbursement reported   as   wages in box 1         AND you have... moving expenses    THEN... file Form 3903 showing all allowable  expenses,* but do not   show any   reimbursements.

negative: "Do I need to pay taxes in India in this scenario? For India tax purposes, you would still qualify as ""Resident Indian"". As a resident Indian you have to pay taxes on Global income. It is not relevant whether you transfer the money back to India to keep in US. The income is generated and taxable.  Depending on your contract, presumably you are working as a free lance; certain expenses are allowed to be deducted from your income, for example if you purchase equipment to help carry out the work, stay / entertainment costs, etc. Consult a professional CA who should be able to guide you on what is eligible and what is not. The balance along with your other income will be taxed as per tax brackets. There is exemption for certain category of workers, mostly in entertainment industry where such income is not taxable. This does not apply to your case."

negative: "The likely reason the mortgage is ""tricky to get"" is the adviser is probably recommending an interest-only mortgage in which there is no repayment of principle before maturity.  That would allow you to deduct the amount of the interest expense from your taxable income.  Your investment grows compound tax deferred and the principal invested (the mortgage balance) is completely tax free since it never qualifies as income for tax purposes. Example ideal scenario: Refinance $100,000 on a 5/1 ARM-interest only at 3%.  Invest the $100,000 at 6%.  Each year you effectively pay taxes on only the gains greater than interest.  If you reinvest the profits it looks something like: Net Profit:    $12,309 Effective Tax Rate:  13.21%"

negative: "Taxes are a tool for achieving social policy goals. While Americans consider ""Socialism"" to be a curse, the US is in fact quite socialistic. Mostly towards corporations, but sometimes even the normal people, not only the ""Corporation are people, my friend"" (M. Romney) get some discounts. The tax deduction on mortgage interest comes as a tool to encourage Americans to own their homes. It is important, socially, for people to own their home to be independent, and in general contributes to the stability of the society. As anything, when taken to the extreme, it in fact achieves exactly the opposite, as we've seen in 2008, but when balanced - works well. Capital gain is taxed in the US, because it is income. Generally, any income is taxed. However, gain sourced from the sale of primary residence is excluded, up to a certain (quite large) amount from this tax (if lived in the residence long enough - 3 of the last 5 years prior to sale). This, again, to encourage Americans to upgrade their houses and make it easier for Americans to relocate when needed (sell one house and buy another without losing cash on taxes). As to ""asset producing income"" - that is true in the US as well. You cannot deduct your personal expenses, in general. Mortgage interest on primary residence is a notable exception, because it serves a social cause. Similarly, medical expenses are allowed as a deduction, if they're above certain limit, and many other things (for example - if a US person totals his car, and insurance doesn't cover the loss - it is tax deductible, above certain limit, the higher the income - the higher the limit). These are purely social policy breaks. Socialism, something Americans like to have, and love to hate. Many ""anti-socialists"" in the US are in fact taking advantage of these specific tax breaks the most, because for rich folks these are limited or non-existent (mortgage interest limited up to 1 million, medical expenses are allowed only above certain percentage of income, etc)."

negative: "Economists actually hate the interest deduction, especially for mortgages. From The Economist:   ""Allowing interest payments, but not dividends, to be deducted from corporate profits before tax is paid is a huge distortion to the system. It is a perk worth around 11% of the value of corporate assets. It has tended to encourage companies to take on more debt. By doing so, it may make the economy more risky at the margin: in a recession, highly-indebted companies are likely to go bust more quickly, whereas companies with lots of equity capital can ride out the storm. As a result, this newspaper has favoured the abolition of the deductibility rule.""  http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21716050-would-be-risky-time-fiddle-tax-code-what-if-interest-expenses  More from 538  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-tax-deductions-economists-hate/"

negative: "I am going to keep things very simple and explain the common-sense reason why the accountant is right: Also, my sister in law owns a small restaurant, where they claim their accountant informed them of the same thing, where a portion of their business purchases had to be counted as taxable personal income. In this case, they said their actual income for the year (through their paychecks) was around 40-50K, but because of this detail, their taxable income came out to be around 180K, causing them to owe a huge amount of tax (30K ish). Consider them and a similarly situated couple that didn't make these purchases. Your sister in law is better off in that she has the benefit of these purchases (increasing the value of her business and her expected future income), but she's worse off because she got less pay. Presumably, she thought this was a fair trade, otherwise she wouldn't have made those purchases. So why should she pay any less in taxes? There's no reason making fair trades should reduce anyone's tax burden. Now, as the items she purchased lose value, that will be a business loss called ""depreciation"". That will be deductible. But the purchases themselves are not, and the income that generated the money to make those purchases is taxable. Generally speaking, business gains are taxable, regardless of what you do with the money (whether you pay yourself, invest it, leave it in the business, or whatever). Generally speaking, only business losses or expenses are deductible. A purchase is an even exchange of income for valuable property -- even exchanges are not deductions because the gain of the thing purchased already fairly compensates you for the cost. You don't specify the exact tax status of the business, but there are really only two types of possibilities. It can be separately taxed as a corporation or it can be treated essentially as if it didn't exist. In the former case, corporate income tax would be due on the revenue that was used to pay for the purchases. There would be no personal income tax due. But it's very unlikely this situation applies as it means all profits taken out of the business are taxed twice and so small businesses are rarely organized this way. In the latter case, which is almost certainly the one that applies, business income is treated as self-employment income. In this case, the income that paid for the purchases is taxable, self-employment income. Since a purchase is not a deductible expense, there is no deduction to offset this income. So, again, the key points are: How much she paid herself doesn't matter. Business income is taxable regardless of what you do with it. When a business pays an expense, it has a loss that is deductible against profits. But when a business makes a purchase, it has neither a gain nor a loss. If a restaurant buys a new stove, it trades some money for a stove, presumably a fair trade. It has had no profit and no loss, so this transaction has no immediate effect on the taxes. (There are some exceptions, but presumably the accountant determined that those don't apply.) When the property of a business loses value, that is usually a deductible loss. So over time, a newly-purchased stove will lose value. That is a loss that is deductible. The important thing to understand is that as far as the IRS is concerned, whether you pay yourself the money or not doesn't matter, business income is taxable and only business losses or expenses are deductible. Investments or purchases of capital assets are neither losses nor expenses. There are ways you can opt to have the business taxed separately so only what you pay yourself shows up on your personal taxes. But unless the business is losing money or needs to hold large profits against future expenses, this is generally a worse deal because money you take out of the business is taxed twice -- once as business income and again as personal income. Update: Does the business eventually, over the course of the depreciation schedule, end up getting all of the original $2,000 tax burden back? Possibly. Ultimately, the entire cost of the item is deductible. That won't necessarily translate into getting the taxes back. But that's really not the right way to think about it. The tax burden was on the income earned. Upon immediate replacement, hypothetically with the exact same model, same cost, same 'value', isn't it correct that the ""value"" of the business only went up by the amount the original item had depreciated? Yes. If you dispose of or sell a capital asset, you will have a gain or loss based on the difference between your remaining basis in the asset and whatever you got for the asset. Wouldn't the tax burden then only be $400? Approximately, yes. The disposal of the original asset would cause a loss of the difference between your remaining basis in the asset and what you got for it (which might be zero). The new asset would then begin depreciating. You are making things a bit more difficult to understand though by focusing on the amount of taxes due rather than the amount of taxable gain or loss you have. They don't always correlate directly (because tax rates can vary)."

negative: Think carefully about the added expenses.  It may still make sense, but it probably won't be as cheap as you are thinking.  In addition to the mortgage and property taxes, there is also insurance and building maintenance and repairs. Appliances, carpets, and roofs need to be replaced periodically.  Depending on the area of the country there is lawn maintenance and now removal. You need to make sure you can cover the expenses if you are without a tenant for 6 months or longer.  When tenants change, there is usually some cleaning and painting that needs to be done. You can deduct the mortgage interest and property taxes on your part of the building.  You need to claim any rent as income, but can deduct the other part of the mortgage interest and taxes as an expense.  You can also deduct building maintenance and repairs on the rental portion of the building.  Some improvements need to be depreciated over time (5-27 years).  You also need to depreciate the cost of the rental portion of the building.  This basically means that you get a deduction each year, but lower the cost basis of the building so you owe more capital gains taxes when you sell. If you do this, I would get a professional to do your taxes at least the first year.  Its not hard once you see it done, but there are a lot of details and complications that you want to get right.

negative: "Not good enough.  So corporations are 'persons', eh? Well I think we have our first candidate for *corporate capital punishment*, starting with a little live-televised *Seppuku* at the top. As ~~proud~~ owner of a $19000 worthless ""brick"" of a Toyota that no one can ride in, I volunteer as 'second'."

negative: Basically there are 2 ways you can make money from an investment, through income (eg: rent or dividends) and through the price of the investment going up (capital growth or gains). Most people associate negative gearing with investment properties but it can be done with shares and other investments where you borrow money to buy the investment and it produces an income of some sort. If the investment does not produce an income then you cannot negative gear it. Using a property as an example (in Australia), if all your expenses each month (loan interest payments, council and water rates, insurance and/or strata, advertising and management fees, depreciation, and maintenance expense) are greater than your income (rent), then you are negative gearing the investment property. This is a monthly loss on your investment which can be used to offset and reduce the amount of tax you pay during the year. So most people negative gearing an investment property will get a nice sum back when they do their tax returns. The problem with negative gearing is that you have to lose money in order to save some tax. So as an example, if you are on a marginal tax rate of 30%, for every $1 you lose from the investment property you will save 30c in tax. If your marginal tax rate is 45% then will save 45c in tax for every $1 lost on the investment property. Thus negative gearing becomes more tax effective the higher your income (and tax bracket). But you are still losing money overall. The problem is that most novice investors buy an investment property for the main purpose of reducing their taxes. This can be dangerous because the main reason to buy any investment should be that you consider it to be a good investment, not to save you tax. Because if the investment is not a good one, then you will not only lose money on the income side but also on the capital side. Negative gearing should be looked at as a bonus or additional benefit when chosing a good investment to buy, not as the reason to buy the investment.

negative: Much of this inequality would be reduced if we moved from income taxation to a wealth/asset tax. We could exempt a person's main residence and retirement savings (similar to the way we do now with the home mortgage deduction and capital gains exemption and with IRAs). This would also obviate the need for a separate capital gains tax.

negative: "Technically, this is considered ""income"" for you, and is actually not considered a ""donation"" for your donors, but is instead a ""gift"" (not tax-deductible for your donors). So, you are technically required to report it, and there is a pretty significant audit trail that can be followed to prove you made that money. I don't know if PayPal is required to file 1099s for payments received, but if you've ever received such a document, so has the IRS, and they'll match it to the income you claimed and see a discrepancy, triggering an audit. Depending on the amount that it affects your taxes (it can be significant; if you have a  $50k/yr day job, you'd owe the government 25 cents on every dollar donated), they can let it slide, they may simply dock your next return, or they may come after you for interest and penalties or even charge you with criminal tax fraud if they could prove you maliciously attempted to conceal this revenue. Now, if you already itemize using a Schedule A, then you can erase this income by deducting the costs of the server, not to exceed the amount of the donations. The best you can do is offset it; you cannot use this deduction to reduce taxable income from other sources. Also, you must itemize; you can't take your standard deduction, and with a maximum possible deduction of the actual costs of running the server ($1500, IF you receive enough donations to fully pay for it) compared to one person's standard deduction ($5800), you'll want to take the standard deduction if you don't have other significant deductions (medical expenses, mortgage interest/property taxes, etc). If you were charging users a monthly fee for use of the server, then you've basically created a de facto sole proprietorship, and you would still have to count the fees as income, but could then deduct the full cost of running the server. You'd fill out a Schedule C listing the revenue and expenses, and back them up with statements from your ISP/hosting company and from PayPal. Now, this would apply if you were running the server with the primary goal of making a regular profit; Schedule C cannot be used for income from a ""hobby"", undertaken primarily for enjoyment and where a few bucks in revenue is gravy. Whether you think you can get away with that in your current situation is your prerogative; I don't think you would, given that the donations are solicited and optional, and thus there is no expectation of ever turning a profit on this game server."

negative: "First to clear a few things up.   It is definitely not a gift. The people are sending you money only because you are providing them with a service.   And for tax purposes, it is not a ""Donation"". It has nothing to do with the fact that you are soliciting the donation, as charitable organizations solicit donations all the time. For tax purposes, it is not a ""Donation"" because you do not have 501(c)(3) non profit status.   It is income. The question is then, is it ""Business"" income, or ""Hobby"" related income?   Firstly, you haven't mentioned, but it's important to consider, how much money are you receiving from this monthly, or how much money do you expect to receive from this annually?   If it's a minimal amount, say $50 a month or less, then you probably just want to treat it as a hobby. Mostly because with this level of income, it's not likely to be profitable. In that case, report the income and pay the tax. The tax you will owe will be minimal and will probably be less than the costs involved with setting up and running it as a business anyway. As a Hobby, you won't be able to deduct your expenses (server costs, etc...) unless you itemize your taxes on Schedule A.   On the other hand if your income from this will be significantly more than $600/yr, now or in the near future, then you should consider running it as a business.   Get it clear in your mind that it's a business, and that you intend it to be profitable. Perhaps it won't be profitable now, or even for a while. What's important at this point is that you intend it to be profitable.   The IRS will consider, if it looks like a business, and it acts like a business, then it's probably a business... so make it so.   Come up with a name for your business. Register the business with your state and/or county as necessary in your location. Get a bank account for your business. Get a separate Business PayPal account. Keep personal and business expenses (and income) separate.   As a business, when you file your taxes, you will be able to file a Schedule C form even if you do not itemize your taxes on Schedule A. On Schedule C, you list and total your (business) income, and your (business) expenses, then you subtract the expenses from the income to calculate your profit (or loss).   If your business income is more than your business expenses, you pay tax on the difference (the profit).  If your business expenses are more than your business income, then you have a business loss. You would not have to pay any income tax on the business income, and you may be able to be carry the loss over to the next and following years. You may want to have a service do your taxes for you, but at this level, it is certainly something you could do yourself with some minimal consultations with an accountant."

negative: "A tax return is a document you sign and file with the government to self-report your tax obligations. A tax refund is the payment you receive from the government if your payments into the tax system exceeded your obligations.  As others have mentioned, if an extra $2K in income generated $5K in taxes, chances are your return was prepared incorrectly. The selection of an appropriate entity type for your business depends a lot on what you expect to see over the next several years in terms of income and expenses, and the extent to which you want or need to pay for fringe benefits or make pretax retirement contributions from your business income. There are four basic flavors of entity which are available to you: Sole proprietorship. This is the simplest option in terms of tax reporting and paperwork required for ongoing operations. Your net (gross minus expenses) income is added to your wage income and you'll pay tax on the total. If your wage income is less than approximately $100K, you'll also owe self-employment tax of approximately 15% in addition to income tax on your business income. If your business runs at a loss, you can deduct the loss from your other income in calculating your taxable income, though you won't be able to run at a loss indefinitely. You are liable for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of all of your personal assets. Partnership. You will need at least two participants (humans or entities) to form a partnership. Individual items of income and expense are identified on a partnership tax return, and each partner's proportionate share is then reported on the individual partners' tax returns. General partners (who actively participate in the business) also must pay self-employment tax on their earnings below approximately $100K. Each general partner is responsible for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of their personal assets. A general partnership can be created informally or with an oral agreement although that's not a good idea. Corporation. Business entities can be taxed as ""S"" or ""C"" corporations. Either way, the corporation is created by filing articles of incorporation with a state government (doesn't have to be the state where you live) and corporations are typically required to file yearly entity statements with the state where they were formed as well as all states where they do business. Shareholders are only liable for the debts and obligations of the corporation to the extent of their investment in the corporation. An ""S"" corporation files an information-only return similar to a partnership which reports items of income and expense, but those items are actually taken into account on the individual tax returns of the shareholders. If an ""S"" corporation runs at a loss, the losses are deductible against the shareholders' other income.  A ""C"" corporation files a tax return more similar to an individual's. A C corporation calculates and pays its own tax at the corporate level. Payments from the C corporation to individuals are typically taxable as wages (from a tax point of view, it's the same as having a second job) or as dividends, depending on how and why the payments are made. (If they're in exchange for effort and work, they're probably wages - if they're payments of business profits to the business owners, they're probably dividends.) If a C corporation runs at a loss, the loss is not deductible against the shareholders' other income.  Fringe benefits such as health insurance for business owners are not deductible as business expenses on the business returns for S corps, partnerships, or sole proprietorships. C corporations can deduct expenses for providing fringe benefits.  LLCs don't have a predefined tax treatment - the members or managers of the LLC choose, when the LLC is formed, if they would like to be taxed as a partnership, an S corporation, or as a C corporation. If an LLC is owned by a single person, it can be considered a ""disregarded entity"" and treated for tax purposes as a sole proprietorship. This option is not available if the LLC has multiple owners.  The asset protection provided by the use of an entity depends quite a bit on the source of the claim. If a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on a contract signed on behalf of the entity, then they likely will not be able to ""pierce the veil"" and collect the entity's debts from the individual owners. On the other hand, if a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on negligence or another tort-like action (such as sexual harassment), then it's very likely that the individual(s) involved will also be sued as individuals, which takes away a lot of the effectiveness of the purported asset protection. The entity-based asset protection is also often unavailable even for contract claims because sophisticated creditors (like banks and landlords) will often insist the the business owners sign a personal guarantee putting their own assets at risk in the event that the business fails to honor its obligations.  There's no particular type of entity which will allow you to entirely avoid tax. Most tax planning revolves around characterizing income and expense items in the most favorable ways possible, or around controlling the timing of the appearance of those items on the tax return."

negative: "-Alain Wertheimer I'm a hobbyist... Most (probably all) of those older items were sold both prior to my establishing the LLC This is a hobby of yours, this is not your business. You purchased all of these goods for your pleasure, not for their future profit. The later items that you bought after your LLC was establish served both purposes (perks of doing what you love).  How should I go about reporting this income for the items I don't have records for how much I purchased them for?  There's nothing you can do. As noted above, these items (if you were to testify in court against the IRS). ""Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, aren't tax deductible."" Source Do I need to indicate 100% of the income because I can't prove that I sold it at a loss? Yes, if you do not have previous records you must claim a 100% capital gain. Source Addition: As JoeTaxpayer has mentioned in the comments, the second source I posted is for stocks and bonds.  So at year begin of 2016, I started selling what I didn't need on eBay and on various forums [January - September]. Because you are not in the business of doing this, you do not need to explain the cost; but you do need to report the income as Gross Income on your 1040. Yes, if you bought a TV three years ago for a $100 and sold it for $50, the IRS would recognize you earning $50.  As these are all personal items, they can not be deducted; regardless of gain or loss. Source Later in the year 2016 (October), I started an LLC (October - December) If these are items that you did not record early in the process of your LLC, then it is reported as a 100% gain as you can not prove any business expenses or costs to acquire associated with it.  Source Refer to above answer.  Refer to above answer.  Conclusion Again, this is a income tax question that is split between business and personal use items. This is not a question of other's assessment of the value of the asset. It is solely based on the instruments of the IRS and their assessment of gains and losses from businesses. As OP does not have the necessary documents to prove otherwise, a cost basis of $0 must be assumed; thus you have a 100% gain on sale."

negative: There is no generic formula as such, but you can work it out using all known incomes and expenses and by making some educated assuption. You should generaly know your buying costs, which include the purchase price, legal fees, taxes (in Australia we have Stamp Duty, which is a large state based tax when you purchase a property). Other things to consider include estimates for any repairs and/or renovations. Also, you should look at the long term growth in your area and use this as an estimate of your potential growth over the period you wish to hold the property, and estimate the agent fees if you were to sell, and the depreciation on the building. These things, including the agent fees when selling and building depreciation, will all be added or deducted to your cost base to determine the amount of capital gain when and if you sell the property. You then need to multiply this gain by the capital gains tax rate to determine the capital gains tax you may have to pay. From all the items above you will be able to estimate the net capital gain (after all taxes) you could expect to make on the property over the period you are looking to hold it for. In regards to holding and renting the property, things you will need to consider include the rent, the long term growth of rent in your area, and all the expenses including, loan fees and interest, insurance, rates, land tax, and an estimate of the annual maintenance cost per year. Also, you would need to consider any depreciation deductions you can claim. Other things you will need to consider, is the change in these values as time goes by, and provide an estimate for these in your calculations. Any increase in the value of land will increase the amount of rates and the land tax you pay, and generally your insurance and maintenance costs will increase with time. However, your interest and mortgage repayments will reduce over time. Will your rent increases cover your increases in the expenses. From all the items above you should be able to work out an estimate of your net rental gain or loss for each year. Again do this for the number of years you are looking to hold the property for and then sum up the total to give a net profit or loss. If there is a net loss from the income, then you need to consider if the net capital gain will cover these losses and still give you a reasonable return over the period you will own the property. Below is a sample calculation showing most of the variables I have discussed.


query: Can somebody explain “leveraged debt investment positions” and “exposures” in this context for me, please?

positive: "Exposure is the amount of money that you are at risk of losing on a given position (i.e. on a UST 10 year bond), portfolio of positions, strategy (selling covered calls for example), or counterparty, usually represented as a percentage of your total assets. Interbank exposure is the exposure of banks to other banks either through owning debt or stock, or by having open positions with the other banks as counterparties. Leveraging occurs when the value of your position is more than the value of what you are trading in. One example of this is borrowing money (i.e. creating debt for yourself) to buy bonds. The amount of your own funds that you are using to pay for the position is ""leveraged"" by the debt so that you are risking more than 100% of your capital if, for example, the bond became worthless). Another example would be buying futures ""on margin"" where you only put up the margin value of the trade and not the full cost. The problem with these leveraged positions is what happens if a credit event (default etc.) happens. Since a large amount of the leverage is being ""passed on"" as banks are issuing debt to buy other banks' debt who are issuing debt to buy debt there is a risk that a single failure could cause an unravelling of these leveraged positions and, since the prices of the bonds will be falling resulting in these leveraged positions losing money, it will cause a cascade of losses and defaults. If a leveraged position becomes worth less than the amount of real (rather than borrowed or margined) money that was put up to take the position then it is almost inevitable that the firm in that position will default on the requirements for the leverage. When that firm defaults it sparks all of the firms who own that debt to go through the same problems that it did, hence the contagion."

negative: "Leverage here is referring to ""financial leverage"". This is the practice of ""levering"" [ie increasing, like the use of a lever to increase the amount of weight you can lift] the value of your investment by taking on debt.  For example: if you have 100k in cash, you can buy a 100k rental property. Assume the property makes 10k a year, net of expenses [10%]. Now assume the bank will also give you a 100k mortgage, at 3%. You could take the mortgage, plus your cash, and buy a 200k rental property. This would earn you 20k from the rental property, less 3k a year in interest costs [the 3%]. Your total income would be 17k, and since you only used 100k of your own money, your rate of return would now be 17% instead of 10%. This is financial leveraging. Note that this increases your risk, because if your investment fails not only have you lost your own money, you now need to pay back the bank. ""Beta riders"" appears to be negative commentary on investors who use Beta to calculate the value of a particular stock, without regard to other quantitative factors. Therefore ""leveraged beta riders"" are those who take on additional risk [by taking on debt to invest], and invest in a manner that the author would perhaps considered ""blindly"" following Beta. However, I have never seen this term before, and it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. A ""quant process driven discipline"" appears to be positive commentary on investors who use detailed quantitative analysis to develop rules which they rigorously follow to invest. I have never seen this exact phrasing before, and like the above, it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. I am not providing any opinion on whether ""beta riding"" or ""quant processes"" are good or bad things; this is just my attempt to interpret the quote as you presented it. Note that I did not go to the article to get context, so perhaps something else in the article could skew the language to mean something other than what I have presented."

negative: You can calculate your exposure intuitively, by calculating your 'fx sensitivity'. Take your total USD assets, let's assume $50k. Convert to EUR at the current rate, let's assume 1 EUR : 1.1 USD, resulting in 45.5k EUR . If the USD strengthens by 1%, this moves to a rate of ~1.09, resulting in 46k EUR value for the same 50k of USD investments. From this you can see that for every 1% the USD strengthens, you gain 500 EUR. For every 1% the USD weakens, you lose 500 EUR. The simplest way to reduce your exchange rate risk exposure, is to simply eliminate your foreign currency investments. ie: if you do not want to be exposed to fluctuations in the USD, invest in EUR only. This will align your assets with the currency of your future expenses [assuming you intend to continue living in Europe].This is not possible of course, if you would like to maintain investments in US assets.  One relatively simple method available to invest in the US, without gaining an exposure to the USD, is to invest in USD assets only with money borrowed in USD. ie: if you borrow $50k USD, and invest $50k in the US stock market, then your new investments will be in the same currency as your debt. Therefore if the USD strengthens, your assets increase in relative EUR value, and your debt becomes more expensive. These two impacts wash out, leaving you with no net exposure to the value of the USD. There is a risk to this option - you are investing with a higher 'financial leverage' ratio. Using borrowed money to invest increases your risk; if your investments fall in value, you still need to make the periodic interest payments. Many people view this increased risk as a reason to never invest with borrowed money. You are compensated for that risk, by increased returns [because you have the ability to earn investment income without contributing any additional money of your own]. Whether the risk is worth it to you will depend on many factors - you should search this site and others on the topic to learn more about what those risks mean.

negative: A synthetic position mimics the payout of a financial instrument.  Synthetics are attractive when the liquidity/availability of an instrument is low or there is a mismatch in fees or values of the synthetic's components which could lead to arbitrage.    In speculative trades, the seller of a CDS takes a positive view of the credit worthiness of the underlying security.  The buyer of a CDS has a negative view of the credit of the underlying.    So in this example, there is a limit on buying or shorting corporate bonds by how many bonds the company has issued, and the value you have to invest in the bond itself, so if you wanted heavy exposure to this company's credit; you would be limited by how many you could buy.  Whereas with a CDS you can mimic the performance with a synthetic position; and as long as there is someone to take the other side of it, you can buy or sell however many you want and have more exposure than the debt the company issued would allow on its own.  Hope that makes some sense.

negative: "When portfolio positions are reported in percentages, those percentages are relative to the portfolio's base equity.  When you start out, that is equal to the cash you have in a portfolio.  Later it's the net equity of the portfolio (i.e., how much money you could withdraw if you were to exit all your positions). If you put $5,000 into your account and are long and short 50%, then you are long $2,500 and short $2,500.  If it's 100% and -100%, then long and short $5,000. ""Leverage"" is often computed gross (as if all positions were long).  So if you have 100% and -100%, then your broker may say you are ""levered 2 to 1.""  That is, your gross exposure is twice as large as your underlying base equity."

negative: I'm not in the industry, but the point of the quoted section suggests that hybrid debt (instruments with both debt and equity features) count as acceptable capital against upcoming required capital positions.   These instruments are going to be cheaper than using common equity, and provide a leverage effect that can improve the return on equity (same income/cash flow over lower required equity).

negative: The opposite of a hedge is leverage (aka gearing). A hedge is where you spend money to reduce your exposure. Leverage is where you spend money to increase your exposure. Spread bets are a form of leverage - that's what makes them such an effective way to lose all your money, quickly.

negative: "leverage amplifies gains and losses, when returns are positive leverage makes them more positive, but when returns are negative leverage makes them more negative. since most investments have a positive return in ""the long run"", leverage is generally considered a good idea for long term illiquid investments like real estate.  that said, to quote keynes: in the long run we are all dead. in the case of real estate specifically, negative returns generally happen when house prices drop. assuming you have no intention of ever selling the properties, you can still end up with negative returns if rents fall, mortgage rates increase or tax rates rise (all of which tend to correlate with falling property values). also, if cash flow becomes negative, you may be forced to sell during a down market, thereby amplifying the loss.  besides loss scenarios, leverage can turn a small gain into a loss because leverage has a price (interest) that is subtracted from any amplified gains (and added to any amplified losses). to give a specific example: if you realize a 0.1% gain on x$ when unleveraged, you could end up with a 17% loss if leveraged 90% at 2% interest. (gains-interest)/investment=(0.001*x-0.02*0.9*x)/(x/10)=-0.017*10=-0.17=17% loss one reason leveraged investments are popular (particularly with real estate), is that the investor can file bankruptcy to ""erase"" a large negative net worth.  this means the down side of a leveraged investment is limited for the highly leveraged investor. this leads to a ""get rich or start over"" mentality common among the self-made millionaire (and failed entrepreneurs).  unfortunately, this dynamic also leads to serious problems for the banking sector in the event of a large nation-wide devaluation of real estate prices."

negative: This would clear out a lot more. 1) Leverage is the act of taking on debt in lieu of the equity you hold. Not always related to firms, it applies to personal situations too. When you take a loan, you get a certain %age of the loan, the bank establishes your equity by looking at your past financial records and then decides the amount it is going to lend, deciding on the safest leverage. In the current action leverage is the whole act of borrowing yen and profiting from it. The leverage factor mentions the amount of leverage happening. 10000 yen being borrowed with an equity of 1000 yen. 2) Commercial banks: 10 to 1 -> They don't deal in complicated investments, derivatives except for hedging, and are under stricter controls of the government. They have to have certain amount of liquidity and can loan out the rest for business. Investment banks: 30 to 1 -> Their main idea is making money and trade heavily. Their deposits are limited by the amount clients have deposited. And as their main motive is to get maximum returns from the available amount, they trade heavily. Derivatives, one of the instruments, are structured on underlyings and sometimes in multiple layers which build up quite a bit of leverage. And all of the trades happen on margins. You don't invest $10k to buy $10k of a traded stock. You put in, maybe $500 to take up the position and borrow the rest of the amount per se. It improves liquidity in the markets and increases efficiency. Else you could do only with what you have. So these margins add up to the leverage the bank is taking on.

negative: Swiss Central bank has a floor of 1.20, the reason why I have this pair is that my downside is limited.  The actual differential is about 20 bps but im leveraged 50:1, which gives me a fun 10% annualized. I bought in at 1.2002, meaning my max downside on an investment of 20K (gives 1mn of exposure), is 200$ and my potential profit is 2000. Creating a risk to return of 10:1.

negative: The most obvious example would be a situation where a Company is growth constrained, but cash flow positive. It may have enough cash flow to service $10 million of debt, but it needs to build a new facility that will cost $20 million. There is the option to raise debt and equity or just raise equity and move quicker to getting that facility up and running.   There are also situations where debt is used to replace equity (i.e. dividend recapitalization or leveraged share redemption).

negative: Very likely this refers to trading/speculating on leverage, not investing. Of course, as soon as you put leverage into the equation this perfectly makes sense.  2007-2009 for example, if one bought the $SPX at its highs in 2007 at ~$1560.00 - to the lows from 2009 at ~$683.00 - implicating that with only 2:1 leverage a $1560.00 account would have received a margin call. At least here in Europe I can trade index CFD's and other leveraged products. If i trade lets say >50:1 leverage it doesn’t take much to get a margin call and/or position closed by the broker. No doubt, depending on which investments you choose there’s always risk, but currency is a position too. TO answer the question, I find it very unlikely that >90% of investors (referring to stocks) lose money / purchasing power. Anyway, I would not deny that where speculators (not investors) use leverage or try to trade swings, news etc. have a very high risk of losing money (purchasing power).

negative: Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money.

negative: It's an artifact of risk-neutral pricing, but the intuition is this:  A call option can be viewed as a levered equity position - meaning, you can get the same exposure by borrowing money and buying the stock.    Say you can buy some call options for $150 with a position delta of 1 (so it looks just like the stock).  You could also buy the stock outright for $1000 (by borrowing $850 at the risk-free rate and using your $150 cash).  If the risk-free rate rises, your cost of carry on the stock position increases.  In the case of the call option, the change in price can be viewed as the cost of *leverage* increasing.

negative: "And this investment and money is under control? HAHAHAHAHAHA   Awesome. Looks more and more like a Ponzi the further and further you go. Please, explain how having the fed purchase our own debt is ""under control"" please. Show me some other great empire in history that managed to purchase its own debt."

negative: "Someone's (or, a bank's) ""exposure to equities"" refers to the amount of value which has a risk that fluctuates with the equities market (ie: the stock market). In very broad terms, I think it might make sense to say that exposure to equities could mean, for example, owning many rental properties, if the rental market was ""highly correlated"" with the equities market. That is - if house prices go down when the equities market goes down, and if that relationship is very strong, then owning a house means you are exposed to the equities market.  However, in the sense it is used there, it seems to mean direct exposure to equities - ie: owning stocks and stock-based funds."

negative: "Financing a portfolio with debt (on margin) leads to higher variance. That's the WHOLE POINT. Let's say it's 50-50.  On the downside, with 100% equity, you can never lose more than your whole equity. But if you have assets of 100, of which 50% is equity and 50% is debt, your losses can be greater than 50%, which is to say more than the value of your equity. The reverse is true. You can make money at TWICE the rate if the market goes up. But ""you pay your money and you take your chances"" (Punch, 1846)."

negative: Hedging - You have an investment and are worried that the price might drop in the near future. You don't want to sell as this will realise a capital gain for which you may have to pay capital gains tax. So instead you make an investment in another instrument (sometimes called insurance) to offset falls in your investment.  An example may be that you own shares in XYZ. You feel the price has risen sharply over the last month and is due for a steep fall. So you buy some put option over XYZ. You pay a small premium and if the price of XYZ falls you will lose money on the shares but will make money on the put option, thus limiting your losses. If the price continues to go up you will only lose the premium you paid for the option (very similar to an insurance policy). Diversification - This is when you may have say $100,000 to invest and spread your investments over a portfolio of shares, some units in a property fund and some bonds. So you are spreading your risks and returns over a range of products. The idea is if one stock or one sector goes down, you will not lose a large portion of your investment, as it is unlikely that all the different sectors will all go down at the same time.

negative: Leverage is when you borrow in order to invest. Mind you, most people aren't going to just give you money to gamble on the stock market completely unsecured; rather, you deposit (say) $10,000 and buy a stock... and then you have $10k in assets which you can borrow against, so you can buy another $10,000 of that stock. Now if the stock goes up you'll make twice the gain (2x leverage). However, if it goes down, you'll lose twice as much as well. If the value of your stock falls, your line of credit will be reduced as well; in this case, since you used all your credit and are now over your limit, your broker will issue a margin call (they will demand a deposit of additional funds, or they will sell some of your stock at their discretion). This protects you from owing more than you invested, but it's still sometimes possible (for instance, if a company spontaneously goes bankrupt and becomes worthless, and your stock becomes worthless). There are also things like leveraged index funds and commodity funds which aim to return some multiple of the market's earnings. These are designed for intraday trading, though, and usually end up underperforming significantly over the long term. [edit] Mose people who accept borrowed funds should generally accept real cash as well. However, if you're trying to short sell, i.e. borrow shares and sell them (in the hopes you can get them back cheaper later after the stock falls) you will need a margin line of credit to do so as well. [edit 2] clarified margin calls

negative: "Leverage means you can make more investments with the same amount of money.  In the case of rental properties, it means you can own more properties and generate more rents.  You exchange a higher cost of doing business (higher interest fees) and a higher risk of total failure, for a larger number of rents and thus higher potential earnings. As with any investment advice, whenever someone tells you ""Do X and you are guaranteed to make more money"", unless you are a printer of money that is not entirely true. In this case, taking more leverage exposes you to more risk, while giving you more potential gain.  That risk is not only on the selling front; in fact, for most small property owners, the risk is primarily that you will have periods of time of higher expense or lower income.  These can come in several ways: If you weather these and similar problems, then you will stand to make more money using higher leverage, assuming you make more money from each property than your additional interest costs.  As long as you're making any money on your properties this is likely (as interest rates are very low right now), but making any money at all (above and beyond the sale value) may be challenging early on.   These sorts of risks are magnified for your first few years, until you've built up a significant reserve to keep your business afloat in downturns.  And of course, any money in a reserve is money you're not leveraging for new property acquisition - the very same trade-off.  And while you may be able to sell one or more properties if you did end up in a temporarily bad situation, you also may run into 2008 again and be unable to do so."

negative: "In an ""efficient"" investment market the amount of risk premium would EXACTLY offset the likelihood of loss, such that over long time frames the expected return on investment would be equal for all investment options.  In practice, we usually see that riskier investments yield a higher long-term return because the risk premium is larger than that ""efficient"" amount. This is because many investors don't have a long-term time horizon, and the pain of loss is greater than the reward of gain (""asymmetric preferences""). It's also important to think about the risk-reward interaction as being PERCEIVED risk to EXPECTED reward.  If I'm lending money to somebody who is likely not to pay me back, I'd want a better deal than if I were lending to somebody who is certain to pay. I think that addresses your confusion, but if I misinterpreted what's puzzling you, please let me know and I"

negative: long deep ITM calls is equivalent to owning the equity.  You're going to pay alot and hence will start off in a hole already, and you aren't getting too much leverage there at all depending how deep ITM you go.  Covariance scales, but assuming B-S in order to get nice scaling and ignoring the risks you are actually taking with options (unlimited down-size ie you can lose your entire investment in the option, people forget this) will screw you unless you really know what you are dong.  Leverage means increasing your risk.  long dep ITM is not obtaining much leverage and therefore not risking too much.  but you aren't going ot get 3-4x leverage this way.  you get leverage by saying: oh, i have 100, i could invest in 1 share of stock OR I could buy 100 worth of some option.  If I pick a deep ITM (think strike = 0) it's identical to owing the stock.  If i pick ATM, i have a ~50/50 chance of wining, so i should be able to double my upside.  If I go OTM, i can increase my exposure to the upside while increasing hte chance that my options expire worthless.  So really, i have no idea why deep ITM do what you are trying to do.  and If you don't either, you probably shouldn't do it.

negative: "None of the previous answers (which are all good) mention margin accounts (loans from your broker).  You may also have heard them described as ""leverage"".  It may seem odd to mention this rather narrow form of debt here, but it's important because overuse of leverage has played a large part in pretty much every financial crisis you can think of (including the most recent one).  As the Investopedia definitions indicate, leverage magnifies gains, but also magnifies losses. I consider margin/leverage to be ""bad"" debt."

negative: There are two obvious cases in which your return is lower with a heavily leveraged investment. If a $100,000 investment of your own cash yields $1000 that's a 1% return. If you put in $50,000 of your own money and borrow $50,000 at 2%, you get a 0% return (After factoring in the interest as above.) If you buy an investment for $100,000 and it loses $1000, that's a -1% return. If you borrow $100,000 and buy two investments, and they both lose $1000, that's a -2% return.

negative: Could somebody explain to me exactly why the writer doesn't think this is a win for passive investing? Aren't 'this could happen' statements only relevant to active managers so if you already believe that active investing is more successful than passive then of course you'll just fit this situation to 'there is still potential for major loss, the S&P has tanked x many times' because you believe that there are predictable patterns in markets while the passive investor says that isn't true.

negative: The fundamental issue with leverage (of any sort, really) is that the amplified downsides are extremely likely to more than cancel out amplified equivalent upsides. Example without using a major swing: 2x leverage on a 5% decline (so a 10% decline).  The 5% decline needs a 5.26% increase to get back level.  However, the 2x leverage needs an 5.55% increase to get back.  So a cycle for the unleveraged returns of -5%, +5.4% would see the unleveraged asset go up by a net +0.13% but 2x leverage would leave you at -0.28%.  Conversely, imagine 0.5x leverage (it's easy to do that: 50% cash allocation): after an underlying -5%, the 0.5x leverage needs only +5.13% to reach par.  This is basically the argument for low volatility funds. Of course, if you can leverage an asset that doesn't go down, then the leverage is great.  And for an asset with an overall positive compound return, a little leverage is probably not going to hurt, simply because there are likely to be enough upsides to cancel out downsides.

negative: Disclaimer: I don't work in the finance industry, and simply took a few classes in corporate finance and management during my undergrad.  It depends on what type of investing you're talking about. If you're talking about building a portfolio of securities, then CAPM is the basis for most valuation models. Generally, CAPM will have you discount based on your best available risk-free rate (usually t-bills or some other fixed income source with a reliable backer). Even after your valuation, the basic theory of risk management for an investment portfolio is still to maintain a diverse basket of poorly correlated products.  If you're talking about corporate finance where a firm is considering an investment such as a new project, then a determining a WACC and using it as a discount rate for your cash flow is a basic strategy.   This is a basic strategy, but there are better ones depending on the specifics of the investment. This is where evaluating exposures is important. To hedge counterparty risk, you might discount by the estimated probability of non-payment or buy trade insurance. To hedge currency risk, you might buy forwards, options, or look into a money market hedge. To hedge political risks like repatriation or changes in tax laws or regulation you might buy political risk insurance. To hedge exposure to a particular commodity price, you can trade futures.

negative: "just curious what qualifies this as a ""hedge fund"".  is it structured as an LLC?  are they charging Apple 2%/20% fees?  are they shorting or using derivatives or leverage to manage risk or amplify returns?  are they employing sophisticated investment strategies?  are they managing funds for outside investors?  sounds to me like a standard cash management and tax avoidance operation of a (very large) corporation that somebody is calling a ""hedge fund"" to claim it is the world's largest.  I'm sure most major corporations are running something similar to this and nobody calls them hedge funds."

negative: "RBL is likely *reserve based lending*, which is a type of asset-based financing in oil&gas world where debt is secured by oil reserves.  Presumably context is that have an oil&gas company that the analyst thinks should be acquiring other companies.  To fund that, the analyst is saying the parent company should borrow money against their reserves (should be relatively inexpensive capital b/c asset-backed) and then using it to fund acquisitions.  For the target's capital structure, those amounts are equity infused by the Parent (even though the Parent got the money by borrowing it).  The Target can then borrow money against its own operations... this borrowed money will ""gear"" up the Target -- gearing is just a term for leverage, typically specifically debt-to-equity ratio.  So to fund the acquisition, the Parent is (1) going to borrow using a RBL on Parent's assets to come up with equity to put into target and (2) going to borrow against Target's business.  Presumably today Target is relatively debt free or even cash heavy."

negative: Levarge in simple terms is how of your own money to how much of borrowed money.   So in 2008 Typical leverage ratios were Investment Banks 30:1 means that for every 1 Unit of Banks money [shareholders capital/ long term debts] there was 30 Units of borrowed money [from deposits/for other institutions/etc]. This is a very unstable situation as typically say you lent out 31 to someone else, half way through repayments, the depositors and other lends are asking you 30 back. You are sunk. Now lets say if you lent 31 to some one, but 30 was your moeny and 1 was from deposits/etc. Then you can anytime more easily pay back the 1 to the depositor. In day trading, usually one squares away the position the same day or within a short period. Hence say you want to buy something worth 1000 in the morning and are selling it say the same day. You are expecting the price to by 1005 and a gain 5. Now when you buy via your broker/trader, you may not be required to pay 1000. Normally one just needs to pay a margin money, typically 10% [varies from market to market, country to country]. So in the first case if you put 1000 and get by 5, you made a profit of 0.5%. However if you were to pay only 10 as margin money [rest 990 is assumed loan from your broker]. You sell at 1005, the broker deducts his 990, and you get 15. So technically on 10 you have made 5 more, ie 50% returns. So this is leveraging of 10:1. If say your broker allowed only 5% margin money, then you just need to pay 5 for the 1000 trade, get back 5. You have made a 100% profit, but the leveraging is 20:1.  Now lets say at this high leveraging when you are selling you get only 990. So you still owe the broker 5, if you can't pay-up and if lot of other such people can't pay-up, then the broker will also go bankrupt and there is a huge risk.  Hence although leveraging helps in quite a few cases, there is always an associated risk when things go wrong badly.

negative: Is used cmc markets application (via my bank at the time) to gain leveraged exposure to the financial markets, with no tax payable as its classed as gambling.  I am sure there are other websites/application offering the same. The results weren't particularly pretty for me, but the concept is sound imo.

negative: "This type of structured product is called a capital protection product.  It's like an insurance product - where you give up some upside for protection against losses in certain cases.   From the bank's perspective they take your investment, treat it as an ""interest-free loan"" and buy derivatives (like options) that give them an expected return greater then  They make their money: With this product, you are giving up some potential upside in order to protect against losses (other than catastrophic losses if the lower index drops by 50% or more).   What's the catch? There's not really a catch. It's a lot like insurance, you might come out ahead (e.g. if the market goes down less than 50%), but you might also give up some upside.  The bank will sell enough of these in various flavors to reduce their risk overall (losses in your product will be covered by gains in another). Note that this product won't necessarily sell for $1,000. You might have to pay $1,100 (or $1,005, or whatever the bank can get people to buy them for) for each note whenever it's released.  That's where the gain or loss comes into play.  If you pay $1,100 but only get $1,000 back because the index didn't go up (or went down) you'd have a net loss of $100. It's subtle, but it is in the prospectus: The estimated value of the notes is only an estimate determined by reference to several factors.  The original issue price of the notes will    exceed the estimated value of the notes because costs associated with selling, structuring and hedging the notes are included in the original issue price of the notes.  These costs include the selling commissions, the projected profits, if any, that our affiliates expect to realize for assuming risks inherent in hedging our obligations under the notes and the estimated cost of hedging our obligations under the notes."

negative: "FTA: ""Verizon would give up its television and Internet landline business known as FiOS, which has been a cable alternative for 14 million U.S. homes.""  Somebody explain to me !!! WTF does it mean? Are they going to give FiOS over to Comcast?"