Can you depreciate assets differently between Federal, State, and Local?
In general, you most definitely can. In some cases you must. However for each State you'll have to check whether you can choose how to depreciate. Many States require you to take the same depreciation as on the Federal schedule, including Sec. 179, others won't allow Sec. 179 at all. Specifically to PA, I haven't found any current guidance, but the rules from 2012 put PA in the bucket that requires you to take the same Sec. 179 on the State return as appears on your Federal return. If you elect to expense Section 179 Property for FIT purposes, you are   required to expense the property for PIT purposes. However PA limit for Sec. 179 is $25K, so if your Federal deduction is larger - you can depreciate the rest. Check with a PA-licensed CPA or EA for a more reliable opinion, since I'm not a tax adviser. Just googled it.
Net worth is interesting as it can have a different number assigned depending on your intent.  The number I focus on is my total retirement account and any brokerage account. I purposely exclude the value of my house.* This tells me how much I'm able to invest. My heir would look at it a bit differently. She'd have the cash not only from the house, but from every bit of our possessions that can be sold. For my own purposes, knowing I have a piece of art that might sell for $xxx doesn't mean much, except for insurance purposes. In your case, if the coins are gold, and held for investment, count them. If they were your grandfather's and you plan to leave them to your own grandkids, I'd leave them out.  * I make this point for two reasons - as someone with an eye toward retirement, the house doesn't get included in the 4% return math that I apply to the retirement and stock accounts. Also, in our situation, even when we downsize at retirement, the move isn't likely to pull much cash out of the house, it will be a lateral move. For those who plan to move from a McMansion in the suburbs of NY or Boston to a modest home in a lower cost of living elsewhere, that difference may be very important, and should be taken into account. This is simply how we handle this. Straight line in this example should be just the $2MM per year.  I don't think the author of the problem intended you to use anything in the actual tax code like MACRS.  I think the goal of the problem is to get you to identify the value of the depreciation tax shield and how the depreciation does affect your cash flow by reducing your taxes, even though depreciation itself is not a cash event. You also may want to consider how this interacts with the stepped up basis of estates.  If you never sell the stock and it passes to your heirs with your estate, under current tax law the basis will increase from the purchase price to the market price at the time of transfer.   In a comment, you proposed:   Thinking more deeply though, I am a little skeptical that it's a free lunch: Say I buy stock A (a computer manufacturer) at $100 which I intend to hold long term. It ends up falling to $80 and the robo-advisor sells it for tax loss harvesting, buying stock B (a similar computer manufacturer) as a replacement. So I benefit from realizing those losses. HOWEVER, say both stocks then rise by 50% over 3 years. At this point, selling B gives me more capital gains tax than if I had held A through the losses, since A's rise from 80 back to 100 would have been free for me since I purchased at 100. And then later thought  Although thinking even more (sorry, thinking out loud here), I guess I still come out ahead on taxes since I was able to deduct the $20 loss on A against ordinary income, and while I pay extra capital gains on B, that's a lower tax rate. So the free lunch is $20*[number of shares]*([my tax bracket] - [capital gains rates]) That's true.  And in addition to that, if you never sell B, which continues to rise to $200 (was last at $120 after a 50% increase from $80), the basis steps up to $200 on transfer to your heirs.   Of course, your estate may have to pay a 40% tax on the $200 before transferring the shares to your heirs.  So this isn't exactly a free lunch either.  But you have to pay that 40% tax regardless of the form in which the money is held.  Cash, real estate, stocks, whatever.  Whether you have a large or small capital gain on the stock is irrelevant to the estate tax.   This type of planning may not matter to you personally, but it is another aspect of what wealth management can impact. "Property sold at profit is taxed at capital gains rate (if you held it for more than a year, which you have based on your previous question). Thus deferring salary won't change the taxable amount or the tax rate on the property. It may save you the 3% difference on the salary, but I don't know how significant can that be. The 25% depreciation recapture rate (or whatever the current percentage is) is preset by your depreciation and cannot be changed, so you'll have to pay that first. Whatever is left above it is capital gains and will be taxed at discounted rates (20% IIRC). You need to make sure that you deduct everything, and capitalize everything else (all the non-deductible expenses and losses with regards to the property). For example, if you remodeled - its added to your basis (reduces the gains). If you did significant improvements and changes - the same. If you installed new appliances and carpets - they're depreciated faster (you can appropriate part of the sale proceeds to these and thus reduce the actual property related gain). Also, you need to see what gain you have on the land - the land cannot be depreciated, so all the gain on it is capital gain. Your CPA will help you investigating these, and maybe other ways to reduce your tax bill. Do make sure to have proper documentation and proofs for all your claims, don't make things up and don't allow your CPA ""cut corners"". It may cost you dearly on audit." IRS Pub 561 says you have to use fair market value.  You cannot simply use a depreciated value. You should attempt to determine what people normally pay for comparable items, and be prepared to defend your determination with evidence in the event of an audit. "I made an investing mistake many (eight?) years ago. Specifically, I invested a very large sum of money in a certain triple leveraged ETF (the asset has not yet been sold, but the value has decreased to maybe one 8th or 5th of the original amount). I thought the risk involved was the volatility--I didn't realize that due to the nature of the asset the value would be constantly decreasing towards zero! Anyhow, my question is what to do next?  I would advise you to sell it ASAP. You didn't mention what ETF it is, but chances are you will continue to lose money. The complicating factor is that I have since moved out of the United States and am living abroad (i.e. Japan). I am permanent resident of my host country, I have a steady salary that is paid by a company incorporated in my host country, and pay taxes to the host government. I file a tax return to the U.S. Government each year, but all my income is excluded so I do not pay any taxes. In this way, I do not think that I can write anything off on my U.S. tax return. Also, I have absolutely no idea if I would be able to write off any losses on my Japanese tax return (I've entrusted all the family tax issues to my wife). Would this be possible?  I can't answer this question but you seem to be looking for information on ""cross-border tax harvesting"". If Google doesn't yield useful results, I'd suggest you talk to an accountant who is familiar with the relevant tax codes. Are there any other available options (that would not involve having to tell my wife about the loss, which would be inevitable if I were to go the tax write-off route in Japan)? This is off topic but you should probably have an honest conversation with your wife regardless. If I continue to hold onto this asset the value will decrease lower and lower. Any suggestions as to what to do? See above: close your position ASAP For more information on the pitfalls of leveraged ETFs (FINRA) What happens if I hold longer than one trading day?  While there may be trading and hedging strategies that justify holding these investments longer than a day, buy-and-hold investors with an intermediate or long-term time horizon should carefully consider whether these ETFs are appropriate for their portfolio. As discussed above, because leveraged and inverse ETFs reset each day, their performance can quickly diverge from the performance of the underlying index or benchmark. In other words, it is possible that you could suffer significant losses even if the long-term performance of the index showed a gain." Does allowing family to stay at the rental jeopardize my depreciation?  No, accumulated depreciation that hasn't been deducted reduces your basis in the event of sale. That doesn't go anywhere. Accumulating more may not be allowed though. If the property is no longer rental (i.e.: personal use, your family member lives there for free), you cannot claim expenses or depreciation on it. If you still rent it out to your family member, but not at the fair market value, then you can only claim expenses up to the rental income. I.e.: you can only depreciate up to the extent the depreciation (after all the expenses) not being over the income generated. You cannot generate losses in such case, even if disallowed. If you rent to your family member at the market rate (make sure it is properly documented), then the family relationship really doesn't matter. You continue accumulating expenses as usual. If you are making regular periodic investments (e.g. each pay period into a 401(k) plan) or via automatic investment scheme in a non-tax-deferred portfolio (e.g. every month, $200 goes automatically from your checking account to your broker or mutual fund house), then one way of rebalancing (over a period of time) is to direct your investment differently into the various accounts you have, with more going into the pile that needs bringing up, and less into the pile that is too high. That way, you can avoid capital gains or losses etc in doing the selling-off of assets. You do, of course, take longer to achieve the balance that you seek, but you do get some of the benefits of dollar-cost averaging. Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or   short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If   the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is   short-term. Net Capital Gain.  If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their   long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term   capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net   short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss.  Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock.  So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability.  At best it defers it. The government pays interest on its debts just like anyone else, but since it's already the government and already taking advantage of credit (your money loaned to it through the bonds), it doesn't need the extra benefit of taxing the interest it pays. **It's better off just issuing bonds at a lower interest rate and letting you keep all the interest, instead of a higher interest rate which will have some amount taxed and returned to it anyway.** The government wants a cut of private loan interest just like any other income, which is why interest on private bonds/loans is taxable.  Edit: What about municipal bonds? Wouldn't the federal government benefit from taxing interest on municipal bonds?   Municipal bonds are issued to support public infrastructure &amp; services such as construction of water supply infrastructure. Since the goal is to improve facilities for the public benefit, and government programs ostensibly aim to provide public benefits as well, it allows the full proceeds of the bonds to go to the designated projects at the lowest possible interest rate (and the public pays the interest through city rates). Taxing municipal bonds would result in a higher cost to the public for the same end result (because of higher interest rates), with the net interest going to the federal &amp; state governments via income tax on the interest. Many states have a simple method for assessing income tax on nonresidents.  If you have $X income in State A where you claim nonresident status and  $Y income overall, then you owe State A a fraction (X/Y) of the income  tax that would have been due on $Y income had you been a resident of State A.  In other words, compute the state income tax on $Y as per State A rules, and send us (X/Y) of that amount.  If you are a resident of State B, then State B  will tax you on $Y but give you some credit for taxes paid to State A. Thus, you might be required to file a State A income tax return regardless of how small $X is.  As a practical matter, many commercial real-estate  investments are set up as limited partnerships in which most of the annual taxable income is a small amount of portfolio income (usually interest income that you report on Schedule B of Form 1040), and the annual  bottom line is lots of passive losses which the limited partners report (but do not get to deduct) on the Federal return.  As a result, State A is unlikely to come after you for the tax on, say, $100 of interest income each year because it will cost them more to go after you than they will  recover from you. But, when the real estate is sold, there will (hopefully) be a big capital gain, most of which  will be sheltered from Federal tax since the passive losses finally get  to be deducted.  At this point, State A is not only owed a lot of money (it knows nothing of your passive losses etc) but, after it processes the income tax return that you filed for that year, it will likely demand that you file income tax returns for previous years as well. I'd agree, inflation affects the value of the dollar you measure anything in. So, it makes your debt fade away at the same rate it eats away at dollar denominated assets. I'd suggest that one should also look at the tax effect of the debt or assets as well.  For example, my 3.5% mortgage costs me 2.625% after tax. But a 4% long term cap gain in stocks, costs me .6% in tax for a net 3.4%. "Look for states that have no income tax. A lot of these states supplement their revenue with higher property taxes, but if you rent and do not own property in the state, then you will have no state tax liability. Similarly, many states treat capital gains no differently than income tax, so if you make your earnings due to a large nest egg, then way you will still incur no tax liability on the state level Look for ""unincorporated"" areas, as these are administrative divisions of states that do not have a municipal government, and as such do not collect local taxes. Look for economic development perks of the new jurisdiction. Many states have some kind of formal tax credit for people that start business or buy in certain areas, but MONEY TALKS and you can make an individual arrangement with any agency, municipality etc. If the secretary at city hall doesn't know about a prepackaged formal arrangement that is offered to citizens, then ask for the ""expedited development package"" which generally has a ""processing fee"" involved. This is something you make up ie. ""What is the processing fee for the expedited development package, quote on quote"" States like Maryland and Nevada have formalized this process, but you are generally paying off the Secretary of State for favorable treatment. You'll always be paying off someone." "EBITDA is in my opinion not a useful measure for an investor looking to buy shares on the stock market. It is more useful for private businesses open to changing their structuring, or looking to sell significant parts of their business. One of the main benefits of reporting Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation & Amortization, is that it presents the company as it would look to a potential buyer. Consider that net income, as a metric, includes interest costs, taxes, and depreciation.  Interest costs are (to put it simply) a result of multiplying a business's debt by its interest rate. If you own a business, and personally guarantee the loan that the company has with the bank, your interest rates might be artificially low. If you have a policy of reaching high debt levels relative to your equity, in order to achieve high 'financial leveraging', your interest cost might be artificially high. Either way, if I bought your business, my debt structure could be completely different, and therefore your interest costs are not particularly relevant to me, a potential buyer. Instead, I should attempt to anticipate what my own interest costs would be, under my plans for your business. Taxes are a result of many factors, including the corporate structure of the business. If you run your business as a sole proprietorship (ie: no corporation), but I want to buy it under my corporation, then my tax rates could look nothing like yours. Or if we operated in multiple jurisdictions. etc. etc. Instead of using your taxes as an estimate for mine, I should anticipate my taxes based on my plans for your business. Depreciation / amortization is a measure that estimates how much of a business's ""fixed assets"" were ""used up"" during the year. ie: how much wear and tear occurred on your fleet of trucks? It is generally calculated as a % of your overall asset value. It is a (very loose) proxy for the cash costs which will ultimately be incurred to make repairs/replacements. D&A is also something which could significantly change if a business changes hands. If the value of your building is much higher now than when you bought it, I will have higher D&A costs than you [because I will be recording a % of total costs higher than yours], and therefore I should forecast my own D&A. Removing these costs from Net Income is not particularly relevant for a casual stock investor, because these costs will not change when you buy shares. Whatever IBM's interest cost is, reflects the debt structuring policy that the company currently has. Therefore when you buy a share in IBM, you should consider the impact that interest has on net income. Similarly for taxes and D&A - they reflect costs to the business that impact the company's ability to pay you a dividend, and therefore you should look at net income, which includes those costs. Why would a business with 'good net income' and 'good EBITDA' report EBITDA? Because EBITDA will always be higher than net income. Why say $10M net income, when you could say $50M EBITDA? The fact is, it's easy to report, and is generally well understood - so why not report it, when it also makes you look better, from a purely ""big number = good"" perspective? I'm not sure that reporting EBITDA implies any sort of manipulative reporting, but it would seem that Warren Buffet feels this is a risk." You are talking about adjusting the basis of your property which has its own IRS publication Publication 551: Basis of Assets Assuming you've not taken depreciation on your land in any way, pages 4-5 cover the various ways you can increase the basis of your property. Improvements like paving and wiring such as your second case would increase the basis of the property and reduce your gains when you sell. Note that regular real estate taxes do NOT alter your basis. Again the IRS publication is where you should look on what activity would have altered your basis during your period of ownership.  Consult appropriate accounting and legal practitioners when in doubt.