Joint account that requires all signatures of all owners to withdraw money?
Savings accounts have lower fees. If you don't anticipate doing many transactions per month, e.g. three or fewer withdrawals, then I would suggest a savings account rather than a checking account. A joint account that requires both account holder signatures to make withdrawals will probably require both account holders' signature endorsements, in order to make deposits. For example, if you are issued a tax refund by the U.S. Treasury, or any check that is payable to both parties, you will only be able to deposit that check in a joint account that has both persons as signatories. There can be complications due to multi-party account ownership if cashing versus depositing a joint check and account tax ID number. When you open the account, you will need to specify what your wishes are, regarding whether both parties or either party can make deposits and withdrawals. Also, at least one party will need to be present, with appropriate identification (probably tax ID or Social Security number), when opening the account.  If the account has three or more owners, you might be required to open a business or commercial account, rather than a consumer account. This would be due to the extra expense of administering an account with more than two signatories. After the questioner specified interest North Carolina in the comments, I found that the North Carolina general banking statutes have specific rules for joint accounts: Any two or more persons may establish a deposit account...   The deposit account and any balance shall be as joint tenants...   Unless the persons establishing the account have agreed with the bank   that withdrawals require more than one signature, payment by the bank   to, or on the order of (either person on) the account satisfys the bank's obligation I looked for different banks in North Carolina. I found joint account terms similar to this in PDF file format, everywhere, Joint Account: If an item is drawn so that it is unclear whether one payee’s   endorsement or two is required, only one endorsement will be    required and the Bank shall not be liable for any loss incurred by the   maker as a result of there being only one endorsement. also  Joint accounts are owned by you individually or jointly with others.   All of the funds in a joint account may be used to repay the debts of   any co-owner, whether they are owed individually, by a co-owner,   jointly with other co-owners, or jointly with other persons or   entities having no interest in your account. You will need to tell the bank specifically what permissions you want for your joint account, as it is between you and your bank, in North Carolina.
"I'm pretty sure that the banks here will only allow a joint account with either all citizens or all ""foreign resident"" or tourists. You may be able to do something with Leumi since they have a US branch in NYC. What many people do (who are US citizens) is open a bank account either at a physical branch or online and then it can be managed all online. Make sure no monthly balance fees or atm fees etc. If you need to transfer money most banks will ""buy"" a US check (I have done this with Leumi) or you can go to the ATM and pull out a few thousand shekel from the USA account and deposit it right back into the Israeli account.  My wife and I did this when we first arrived. Discount Bank seemed to have no fees for pulling money out and a good USD/ILS rate. Just make sure you don't have foreign transaction fees / high rates on the US account. If you need to deposit checks for him you can use the remote deposit feature and just take a picture. בהצלחה!" Do you have signature authority or interest in the account? Then yes. Interest in the account means that you wire $25K to your dad, but the money still belongs to you (I.e.: if you ask for it your dad will give it back to you). No. But the scenario is unrealistic. No bank will give the LLC any loan unless the members personally co-sign to guarantee it. In which case, the members become personally liable in addition to the LLC. "Uniform Transfer to Minors Act (UTMA) and Uniform Gift to Minors Act (UGMA) accounts in the United States are accounts that belong to your child, but you can deposit money into.  When the child attains his/her majority, the money becomes theirs to spend however they wish.  Prior to attaining their majority, a custodian must sign off on withdrawals.  Now, they are not foolproof; legally, you can withdraw money if it is spent on the child's behalf, so that can be gamed.  What you can do to protect against that is to make another person the custodian (or, perhaps make them joint custodians with yourself, requiring both signatures for withdrawals). UTMA/UGMA accounts do not have to be bank savings accounts; for example, both of my children have accounts at Vanguard which are effectively their college savings accounts.  They're invested in various ETFs and similar kinds of investments; you're welcome to choose from a wide variety of options depending on risk tolerance.  Typically these accounts have relatively small fees, particularly if you have a reasonable minimum balance (I think USD$10k is a common minimum for avoiding larger fees). If you are looking for something even more secure than a UGMA or UTMA account, you can set up a trust.  These have several major differences over the UGMA/UTMA accounts: Some of course consider the second point an advantage, some a disadvantage - we (and Grandma) prefer to let our children make their own choices re: college, while others may not prefer that. Also worth noting as a difference - and concern to think about - in these two.  A UGMA or UTMA account that generates income may have taxable events - interest or dividend income.  If that's over a relatively low threshhold, about $1050 this year, those earnings will be taxed (on the child's own tax return).  If it's over $2100 (this year), those earnings will be taxed at the parents' tax rate (""kiddie tax""). Trusts are slightly different; trusts themselves are taxed, and have their own tax returns.  If you do set one of those up, the lawyer who helps you do so should inform you of the tax implications and either hook you up with an accountant or point you to resources to handle the taxes yourself." "What you describe is called a ""partnership"" (""General Partnership"", more precise). Partnership are unincorporated associations of people with a common goal in mind. Every partner shares the same responsibility and obligations, and the duties and authorizations to act on behalf of the partnership should be written down and signed by all the partners in a contract, which is called ""Operating Agreement"". With that in place, you (if you're given the authority by the partners) can open a bank account on behalf of the partnership, and allow other partners access to it (with or without signature authority, per the operating agreement). If you're talking about a group of homeowners - you should set up a ""Homeowners Association"" (HOA). Per applicable state law it would either be a limited partnership or a special kind of incorporated entity. That entity can enter contracts (hire a lawyer, for example) on behalf of all the owners." "You need to consult a lawyer in your area. Generally speaking though, if you breach the T&C, they don't have to follow them either, which means that whatever they were responsible for in those terms and conditions, they're no longer responsible.  So if you get hacked, and they can prove you breached T&C by sharing your credentials, they are absolutely off the hook for your financial losses. So if they detect you're in breach, they may record it and not pursue any other action unless/until you have an issue, in which case they say, ""they're in breach, see here, here and here.""  Or there may be regulations that require they notify you of their detection of the breach.  If this sort of regulation exists, I suspect that the notification would also include a termination of all accounts as well.  I can also picture situation where a company might have such a policy built into the T&C so that they can steer as clear as possible from any situations involving liability and cyber-crime in the same sentence. My suggestion would be to take the terms and conditions for your banks to some kind of legal clinic and get them to explain the parts that you do not understand." "Cosigning is explicitly a promise that you will make the payments if the primary signer can not. Don't do it unless you are able to handle the cost and trust the other party will ""make you whole"" when they can... which means don't do it for anyone you would not lend your money to, since it comes out to about the same level of risk. Having agreed, you're sorta stuck with your ex-friend's problem. I recommend talking to a lawyer about the safest way get out of this. It isn't clear you can even sue the ex-friend at this point." The bank won't let you because: Differences in required account features — Business accounts have different features (many of them legal features) that are required by businesses. For instances: Do you want to be able to deposit cheques that are written out to your business name? You need a business account for that. Your business could be sold. Then it wouldn't be your business, so it wouldn't make sense to put the business account under your personal name. The bank account and the cash it holds is a business asset and should be owned by the business, so when the business is sold the account goes with it. This is especially the case for a corporation that has shareholders, and not a sole proprietorship. For a business, you could also, in theory, assign other people as signing authorities on the business account (e.g. your corporate treasurer), and the individuals performing that role could change over time. Business accounts allow for this kind of use. Market segmentation — The bank has consciously undertaken to segment their product offerings in order to maximize their profit. Market segmentation helps the bottom line. Even if there were zero legal reasons to have separate personal vs. business accounts, banks would still make it their policy to sell different account types according to use because they can make more money that way. Consider an example in another industry: The plain-old telephone company also practices segmentation w.r.t. personal/business. Do you want a telephone line for a business and listed as such in the phone book? You need a business line. Do you want a phone line hooked up at a non-residential address? You need a business line. Here it's clear it is less of a legal issue than with the bank account, and it doesn't matter that the technical features of the phone line may be identical for the basic product offerings within each segment. The phone company has chosen to segment and price their product offerings this way. Q. Why do companies choose to charge some kinds of customers more than others for essentially the same underlying service? A. Because they can. "Your money in the bank is yours. If you lose your bank card and forget the account number, it's still yours. It's just harder to prove. If your name is Joe Smith, it might be harder to find your bank account and to prove it's yours.  If ""go to the bank"" means walking into a branch of the bank and walking out with your money fifteen minutes later, that's unlikely to happen. More likely they will give you forms to fill in to maximise chances of finding your account, and tell you what evidence to bring to prove that you are the owner of the account." It will not affect your tax bracket so long as he files his taxes.   It will not affect your credit negatively so long as the joint account takes out no debts.  If it does take out debts, then someone would need to pay them to avoid negative credit.  Ideally debts should take signatures from both of you (ask the bank).   The IRS will not automatically assume that the only reason that two people might have a joint account is illegal activities.   If he withdraws money from the account in such a way to cause an overdraft, you might be responsible for it.  However, it sounds like he isn't supposed to be withdrawing money from that account.  So that's a potential problem but not a guaranteed problem.  Make sure that you have the power to close the account without him (so if you break up later, you can take your name off unilaterally).  Realize that you might have to pay a little to close the account if he overdraws it.  If possible, have the bank refuse overdrafts.   Consider a savings account rather than a checking account.  The rules may better fit what you want to do.  In particular, if you are limited to transfers, that's safer than checks.  Schedule a time to talk to someone at the bank about the account.  Ask them to leave plenty of time because you have questions.  Explain what you want and let them tell you how to structure the account. In my experience, this choice is entirely up to the bank itself. There was a time when, given my mothers ATM card I could go to the bank and pull money for her, but the bank has since changed their rules and now they only will allow people listed on the account to access it, card or no card.  If the bank is aware of who you are and knows that your friend is not you, they may be skeptical of allowing your friend to withdraw any money, or they might not care, it's at their discretion.  If they do not know who either of you are, if your friend has the card and information needed, that will likely be sufficient, unless they ask for identification. My answer is with respect to the United States. I have no idea about India's regulatory environment. You are opening yourself up to massive liabilities and problems if you deposit their money in your account. I managed investment accounts as a private investment advisor for years (those with less than 15 clients were not required to register) until Dodd-Frank changed the rules. Thus you would have to register as an advisor, probably needing to take the series 65 exam (or qualifying some other way, e.g. getting your CFP/CFA/etc...). I used a discount broker/dealer (Scottrade) as the custodian. Here's how it works: Each client's account was their own account, and I had a master account that allowed me to bill their accounts and manage them.  They signed paperwork making me the advisor on their account.  I had very little accounting to handle (aside from tracking basis for taxed accounts). If you take custody of the money, you'll have regulatory obligations. There are always lots of stories in the financial advisor trade publications about advisors who go to jail for screwing their clients. The most common factor: they took custody of the assets. I understand why you want a single account - you want to ensure that each client gets the same results, right? Does each client want the same results?  Certainly the tax situation for each is different, yes?  Perhaps one has gains and wants to take losses in one year, and the other doesn't. If their accounts are managed separately, one can take losses while the other realizes gains to offset other losses. Financial advisors offer these kinds of accounts as Separately Managed Accounts (SMAs). The advisors on these kinds of accounts are mutual funds managers, and they try to match a target portfolio, but they can do things like realize gains or losses for clients if their tax situation would prefer it. You certainly can't let them put retirement accounts into your single account unless the IRS has you on their list of acceptable custodians. I suggest that you familiarize yourself thoroughly with the regulatory environment that you want to operate under. Then, after examining the pros and cons, you should decide which route you want to take.  I think the most direct and feasible route is to pass the Series 65, register as an investment advisor, and find a custodian who will let you manage the assets as the advisor on the account. Real estate is another matter, you should talk to an attorney, not some random guy on the internet (even if he has an MBA and a BS in Real Estate, which I do). This is very much a state law thing. In my experience, you don't need to endorse a check with a signature to deposit it into your account.  You do if you are exchanging the check for cash.  Businesses usually have a stamp with their account number on them.  Once stamped, those checks are only able to be deposited into that account.  Individuals can do the same.   I have had issues depositing insurance and government checks in the past that had both my and my wife's name on them.  Both of us had to endorse the check to be able to deposit them.  I think this was some kind of fraud prevention scheme, so that later one of us couldn't claim they didn't know anything about the check. "Welcome to the 21st century, the New Order. Forget all that legal mumbo jumbo you may have read back in law school in the 1960s about commercial code. Its all gone now. Now we have Check 21 and the Patriot Act !!! Basically what this means is that because some Arab fanatics burned down the World Trade Center, the US government and its allied civilian banking company henchmen now have total control and dictatorship over ""your"" money, which is no longer really money, but more like a ""credit"" to your account with THEM which they can do with what they want. Here are some of the many consequences of the two aforementioned acts: (1) You can no longer sue a bank for mishandling your money (2) All your banking transaction information is the joint property of the bank, its ""affiliates"" and the US Treasury (3) You can no longer conduct private monetary transactions with other people using a bank as your agent; you can only request that a bank execute an unsecured transaction on your behalf and the bank has total control over that transaction and the terms on which occurs; you have no say over these terms and you cannot sue a bank over any financial tort on you for any reason. (4) All banks are required to spy on you, report any ""suspicious"" actions on your part, develop and run special software to detect these ""suspicious actions"", and send their employees to government-run educational courses where they are taught to spy on customers, how to report suspicious customers and how to seize money and safe deposit boxes from customers when the government orders them to do so. (5) All banks are required to positively identify everyone who has a bank account or safe deposit box and report all their accounts to the government. (6) No transactions can be done anonymously. All parties to every banking transaction must be identified and recorded. So, from the above it should be clear to (if you are a lawyer) why no endorsement is present. That is because your check is not a negotiable instrument anymore, it is merely a request to the bank to transfer funds to the Treasury. The Treasury does not need to ""endorse"" anything. In fact, legally speaking, the Treasury could simply order your bank to empty your account into theirs, and they actually do this all the time to people they are ""investigating"" for supposed crimes. You don't need to endorse checks you receive either because, as I said above, the check is no longer a negotiable instrument. Banks still have people do it, but it is just a pro forma habit from the old days. Since you can't sue the bank, the endorsement is pretty meaningless because it cannot be challenged in court anyway. You could probably just write ""X"" there and they would deposit it." "we can then start taking penalty free withdrawals from it? There's no ""we"" in IRA. There's ""I"". That stands for ""Individual"". So your wife's age has no influence whatsoever on your ability to make qualified distributions from your IRA. The reason courts order distributions from IRAs is due to the community property laws of various States or other considerations that make spouses entitled to the amounts in the IRAs. However, you're talking about family law here, not tax law. For Federal tax purposes, a distribution ordered by the court doesn't trigger penalty (but is taxable), but any other distribution has to follow the regular qualification criteria."