How do you declare an interest free loan?
In principle, the US taxes both income and gifts. Simply thinking good thoughts is not necessarily sufficient to avoid filing or payment obligations. Giving somebody money with no repayment date, no interest, and no enforceable note looks an awful lot like either income or a gift. A loan normally has interest, money sitting in a savings account is insured, and other investments generally have an expected return.  Why would somebody give a loan with no interest, with only flexible or informal payment expectations, in a way where it has neither deposit insurance nor any expectation of net returns?  That looks a lot like a gift - at the very least, a gift of the time value and the default risk. The IRS definitely polices loan rates. The latest release is Revenue Ruling 2014-13. The AFR is useful for tax concepts such as Original Issue Discount (when issuers sell low-interest or no-interest bonds or loans at less than face value, attempting to recharacterize interest income as return of principal), various grantor trusts (e.g. GRATs), and so forth.  It's a simple way for the IRS to link to market rates of interest. Documentation and sufficient interest, as well as clear payment schedule (and maybe call or demand rights) make it a bona fide loan.  There is no real way for the IRS to distinguish between an informal arrangement and a post-hoc lie to conceal a gift.  Moreover, an undocumented loan is generally difficult to enforce, so it looks less like a true loan. The lender declares the interest payments as income on his Form 1040, line 8a and if necessary Schedule B. "I am neither a lawyer nor a tax accountant, and if you're dealing with serious money I suggest you consult a professional. But my understanding is: If you make a loan at zero interest or at below-market rates, the IRS will consider the difference between the interest that you do charge and the market rate to be a gift. That is, if someone could get a loan from a bank and he'd pay $1000 in interest for the year, but instead you loan him the money as a friend interest free, than as far as the IRS is concerned you have given him a $1000 gift, and you could potentially have to pay gift tax. Or they might ""impute"" the interest to you and tax you on $1000 of additional income. If you have no agreement on repayment terms, if it's all, ""Hey Joe, just pay me back when you can"", then the IRS is likely to consider the entire ""loan"" to be a gift. There's an annual exclusion on gifts -- I think it's now $13,000 -- so if you loan your buddy fifty bucks to tide him over until next pay day, the IRS isn't going to get involved in that. They're worried about more serious money. And yes, the IRS does ""police loan rates"". The IRS examines exact numbers for all sorts of things. If, say, you go on a 100-mile overnight business trip, and the company gives you $10,000 for travel expenses, the IRS is likely to say that this is not a tax-deductible travel expense at all but a sham to hide part of your salary from taxes. Or if you donate a pair of old socks to charity and declare a $500 charitable contribution deduction, the IRS will say that that is not a realistic value for a pair of old socks and disallow the deduction. Etc. A small discrepancy from market rates can be justified for any number of reasons. If the book value of a used car is $5000 and you sell it to your neighbor for $4900, the IRS is unlikely to question it, there are any number of legitimate business reasons why you had to give a discount to make the sale. But if you sell it to him for $50, they may declare that this is not a sale but a gift. Etc."
"I can't vouch for Australian law, but in the US there is actually a recognized mechanism for ""in-family loans"" which ensures that it's all fully documented for tax purposes, including filing it as an official second mortgage. (Just did that recently in my own family, which is why I'm aware of it.) We're required to charge at least some interest (there's a minimum set, currently around 0.3%), and the interest is taxable income, and it is wise to get a lawyer to draw up the paperwork (there are a few services which specialize in this, charging a flat fee of about US$700 if the loan is standard enough that they can handle it as fill-in-the-blank), but outside of that it's pretty painless. This can also be used as a way of shifting gift limits from year to year -- if you issue a loan, and then gift the recipient with the payments each year (including the payments), you've effectively spread the immediate transfer of money over multiple years of taxes. Of course it does cost you the legal paperwork and the tax in the interest (which they're still ""paying"" out of your gift), but it can be a useful tool, and it's one that wasn't well known until recently. Again: This is all US codes, posted only for comparison (and for the benefit of US readers). It may be completely irrelevant. But it may be worth investigating whether Oz has something similar." Yes, 0% APR = no interest. APR = Annual Percentage Rate. As in, the lender gets an annual percentage returned to them for lending you money. This is the opposite of APY, which is Annual Percentage Yield, or the money that an investment yields. The principal of the loan is the amount you borrow.  The capitalized interest is added to the principal of the loan, because you are not paying this interest as it accrues.  So when you begin payments, the principal of the loan is $5,500 + $436 = $5,936. Using the standard amortization formula (see this page for details), the per-month payment for a ten-year payment plan at 6.8% interest on principal of $5,936 is $68.31.  One hundred twenty payments (each month for ten years) totals $8,197.40. Assuming the United States. This is a loan and not an investment.  You report this as income and will pay your tax rate on the 18% of the money that the borrower pays you (any money paid above what was originally lent) for the year in which it was received. You owe taxes on the income even if the borrower does not send you a Form 1099-INT showing the interest you received. For example: If you loan $10,000 and receive $1,800 in interest, and your tax bracket is 25%, then you will owe $450 in tax. They use an amortization table like can be found Here.  The Forumula is not that complex  where:   A = payment Amount per period    P = initial Principal (loan amount)   r = interest rate per period   n = total number of payments or periods You will need to add 50 to  the A to account for the payment fee amount though. You need to report the interest expense, assuming the loans were for your business: You need to report interest expense (only interest, principle is not an expense just as the loan proceeds are not income). The interest expense goes to the appropriate line on your Schedule C or E (depending on whether you used the loan for the online business or the rental). People whom you borrowed from must also report the interest as income to them on their Schedule B. You cannot deduct the interest expense if they don't report it as interest income. If you didn't take the loans for your business then the interest is not deductible. You don't need to report anything. People who lent you money still have to report the interest you paid to them as income on Schedule B. If you paid no interest (free loan) or below/above market interest to a related party (family member), then the imputed interest is considered income to them and gift to you. They need to report it on their Schedule B, and depending on amounts - on a gift tax return. For $1K to $10K loans there probably will be no need in gift tax returns, the exemption is for $14K per year per person. If the imputed interest rules may apply to you, better talk to a licensed tax adviser on how to proceed. A loan is most generally a liability, a part of the balance sheet.  Expenses & income are part of the income statement.  Income is the net of revenues after expenses. The interest is an expense on the income statement, but the loan itself does not reside there unless if it is defaulted and forgiven.  Then it would become a revenue or contra-expense, depending on the methodology. The original purpose of the income statement is to show the net inflows of short term operational accruals which would exclude new borrowing and repaid loans. The cash flow statement will better show each cash event such as borrowing debt, repaying debt, or paying off a bill. To show how a loan may have funded a bill, which in theory it directly did not because an entity, be it a person or business, is like a single tank of water with multiple pipes filling and multiple pipes extracting, so it is impossible to know which exact inflow funded which exact outflow unless if there is only one inflow per period and one outflow per the same period. That being said, with a cash flow statement, the new loan will show a cash inflow when booked under the financing portion, and paying a bill will show a cash outflow when booked under the operating portion.  With only those two transactions booked and an empty balance sheet beforehand, it could be determined that a new loan funded a bill payment. The calculation can be made on the basis that the loan is equal to the sum of the repayments discounted to present value.  (For more information see Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity.) With Deriving the loan formula from the simple discount summation.  As you can see, this is the same as the loan formula given here. In the UK and Europe APR is usually quoted as the effective interest rate while in the US it is quoted as a nominal rate.  (Also, in the US the effective APR is usually called the annual percentage yield, APY, not APR.) Using the effective interest rate finds the expected answer. The total repayment is £30.78 * n = £1108.08 Using a nominal interest rate does not give the expected answer. "I read up on it and saw that the IRS can ""charge"" the loan provider on   interest even if the loan provider doesn't charge interest, but this   is normally mitigated by the 0% interest being considered a gift and   as long as it's below X amount your fine. Yes, this sums it up. X is the amount of the gift exemption, the $14K. However, you must differ between loan with no interest and loan with no paying back. With loan with no interest you're still giving a statutory gift of the IRS mandated minimum interest. However, the principal is expected to be repaid to you and you must show that this expectation is reasonably fulfilled. If you cannot (i.e.: you gave a ""loan"" with no intention of it being paid back), then the IRS will recharacterize the whole amount as the gift, and you'll be on the hook for gift tax for the amounts above the exemption. What defines a loan vs a gift in terms of the IRS, is it simply that   the loan will be paid back, or is it only considered a loan if a   promisary note is made? As I said - you must be able to show that the loan is indeed a loan, even if it is with no interest. I.e.: it is being repaid, it is treated as a loan by all parties, and is not an attempt to evade gift tax. Promissory note is not a must, but will definitely be helpful in showing that. But without the de-facto repayment of the loan, it will be hard to argue that it is not a gift, even if you have a promissory note. That means, you should make a loan in such a way that the borrower will (begin) repaying it reasonably soon, so that you can show payment schedule being followed and money moving back to you. Reasonably soon is not of course defined in a statute, so do consult with a EA/CPA licensed in your state on how to structure the loan so that it will not appear as an attempt to evade the gift tax. Are there any limits on how big a loan can be? No, but keep in mind that even with statutory interest charges (published by the IRS monthly, see the link), with large enough loan you can exceed the gift tax exemption. Also, keep in mind that interest is taxable income to you. Even if you gift it back (i.e.: the statutory interest)." I have answered your question in detail here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12396422/apr-calculation-formula The annuity formula in FDIC document is at first finding PVIFAD present value annuity due factor and multiplying it with annuity payment and then dividing it by an interest factor of (1+i) to reduce the annuity to an ordinary annuity with end of period payments They could have simply used PVIFA and multiplying it with annuity payment to find the present value of an ordinary annuity In any case, you should not follow the directions in FDIC document to find interest rate at which the present value of annuity equals the loan amount. The method they are employing is commonly used by Finance Professors to teach their students how to find internal rate of return. The method is prone to lengthy trial and error attempts without having any way of knowing what rate to use as an initial guess to kick off the interest rate calculations So this is what I would suggest if you are not short on time and would like to get yourself familiar with numerical methods or iterative techniques to find internal rate of return There are way too many methods at disposal when it comes to finding interest rates some of which include All of the above methods use a seed value as a guess rate to start the iterative calculations and if results from successive calculations tend to converge within a certain absolute Error bound, we assume that one of the rates have been found as there may be as many rates as the order of the polynomial in this case 36 There are however some other methods that help find all rates by making use of Eigenvalues, but for this you would need a lengthy discourse of Linear Algebra One of the methods that I have come across which was published in the US in 1969 (the year I was born :) ) is called the Jenkins Traub method named after the two individuals who worked jointly on finding a solution to all roots of a polynomial discarding any previous work on the same subject I been trying to go over the Jenkins Traub algorithm but am having difficulty understanding the complex nature of the calculations required to find all roots of the polynomial In summary you would be better of reading up on this site about the Newton Raphson method to find IRR You're looking for the amortization calculation. This calculation is essentially solving for the series of cash flows that will yield a zero balance after the specified term, at the given rate for a loan amount. Once you have solved for the payment amount, you can add additional principal amount to each payment period and see the interest payments and time to zero balance drop. "As noted in richardb's comment buried in the comments/debate on the other answer (and all credit for this answer should be due to him): a significant issue with the scheme as originally envisaged in the question (up to £11K pa) is that there is actually a cap on the maintenance part for over 60s: On page 28 of this ""Student finance - how you're assessed and paid"" document it says: If you're 60 or over on the first day of the first academic year of   your course you can apply for a Maintenance Loan of up to £3,566,   depending on your household income. Your loan will be reduced by £1   for every £5.46 of household income over £25,000, up to £43,675. If   your household income is more than this you won't get any Maintenance   Loan. I'd consider that to make this route considerably less attractive... and maybe that's the intention of the rule!  (Although I might not think that was so true if I was actually on the UK's state pension of £6K a year and desperate.  However, I was originally thinking more in terms of comparing the accumulated ""free money"" over the three years with the UK's average - and woefully inadequate - pension pot of £50K, rather than with pensioner income). I'll leave those who found the idea of exploiting government incentives so outrageous to ponder the at least as troubling ethics of discriminating against people based on their age, especially when that government apparently likes the idea of older people retraining. (Just to complicate things: I note that one of the possible criteria for applying for a ""special support grant"" - an alternative to a maintenance loan - is being over 60.  That's a grant not a loan and doesn't have to be repaid, but abusing that would seem even to me to be on a par with faking disability to get benefits or similar)." Never borrow money to get a tax deduction. Even 18 months interest free is a stupid risk to save a few $ in taxes (we're talking $1K or less in tax savings from what I can tell in your questions). If it is a business loan, the borrower would be able to claim a deduction for any interest paid on the loan and the lender would include the interest earned as part of their taxable income. You need to be careful on what you do and don't include as income. If the repayments made to you by the borrower in a year is $10,000 but only $8,000 of that is interest and the other $2,000 is part of the principal being returned to the lender, then you would only claim $8,000 as your income and the borrower would only claim $8,000 as a business deduction. Of course if it is interest only, then you and the borrower would use the full $10,000. This is how its done  I am a certain french bank, aka sg  I have some PIIGS debt, I can use this as collateral at face value (100), with the ECB in order to secure cash... Lets say I use 1mn of BTPS (italian debt), this has an MTM (clean) of 88.  I use that 88 to get me 100 (1mn) of cash, from which I buy another BTPS, for (88), of which I use as collateral pledged to the ECB to get this, get another BTPS.  So now I am long 3 BTPS, all pledged to the ECB and I have 36 in cash and I owe the ECB 300+r in 3 years.  remember the yield on my shitty btps is a lot higher than the interest on the deposits.  Secondly, I have three years, so I don't need to give a fuck about the mark to market on the notes (I could even buy a 2 year and n month note maturing just before). So I can make some free yield at the ECB's expense.  Also this frees up 36 in cash, of which I can use to meet short term funding instead of tapping the bond market, this trade can be made infinitely, although the ECB might catch on.  You can view it as getting a mortgage on your house to buy another house, then mortgaging house #2 to buy house #3, and so on.