Tax implications of corporate housing
If the employer provides housing to the employee, the employer has to identify whether it is taxable or not. If it is - the amounts would be added to the taxable income on your W2. All the withholding and FICA tax calculations will be performed based on that taxable income. If the employer fails to do that, and you get audited, you can be left on the hook for the unpaid taxes on the unreported income. In some cases, employee housing is a non-taxable fringe benefit, in others it is taxable. Your tax adviser will help identify which case applies to you. After you added in a comment that you're trying to see if you should be asking your boss to pay your personal expenses vs. giving you a raise - as I said in the comments, your personal expenses are not deductible neither for you nor for anyone else. If your boss pays your rent instead of a raise - its taxable income for you.
Once your sister and you make your first payments, you've paid $20,645, and your sister has paid $1400. But your sister also owes rent. Zeroth order estimate for rent is that it's equal to mortgage payment, so that's $2045 (I assume that $2045 is actually your total payment, not just your escrow payment. Unless I'm misunderstanding what the term means, $2045 is an absurdly high amount for a monthly escrow payment.) So your sister now has made a net capital contribution of ... negative $645. So you're giving your sister a gift of $7740 each year, and are the sole equity owner of the house. There's a $14000/year gift tax exclusion, and I think that both you and your husband can claim it separately, so every year you could declare your sister to have $20260 added to her capital contribution, or more if you're willing to pay gift tax. But as it stands, if there are any losses from the property, they will be borne exclusively by you; therefore, any profits should be enjoyed exclusively by you. Any other arrangement is you giving a gift to your sister. If the price of the house were to shoot up to $1,000,000 after a year, and you were to split the profits with your sister 50:50, and not pay a gift tax, you WOULD be violating tax law. I'm not sure 1099-MISC is what you should expect. Equity means ownership, and in LLC context it means membership. As an LLC member, you'll get distributions and should receive a K-1 form for tax treatment, not 1099 or W2. If the CEO is talking about 1099 it means he's going to hire you as a contractor which contradicts the statement about equity allocation. That's an entirely different situation. 1) Specifically, would the 1099-MISC form be used in this case? 1099-MISC is used to describe various payments. Depending on which box is filled, the tax treatment may be as of employment income (subject to SE taxes) or passive income (royalties, rents, etc - subject to various limitations in the tax code). 3) If this is the only logical method of compensation (receiving a % of real estate sales), how would it be taxed? That would probably be a commission and taxed as employment income. I suggest to get a professional tax adviser consultation on this issue, with specific details, numbers, and kinds of deals involved. You can get gain or lose a lot of money just because you're characterized as a contractor and not LLC member or employee (each has its own benefits and disadvantages, and you have to consider them all). 4) Are there any advantages/disadvantages to acquiring and selling   properties through the company as opposed to receiving a % of sales? Yes. There are advantages and there are disadvantages. For example, if you're using a corporation, you can get salary, if you're a contractor you cannot. There are a lot of issues hidden in this distinction (which I've just discussed with KeithS in this argument). Yes, but how does that compare to those with multiple houses?  I build homes in the Seattle area for a living and one lifestyle who own several rentals... One thing them do is use equity for their 4 homes to purchase another.. Writing off the the interest paid on the loan(s)...  I'm not saying it's a deduction normal people don't use... I'm just saying that it strikes me as a deduction that the wealthiest  landlords use more with better results... When the corporate tax rate is increased corporations either pass tax this on to 1. consumers through higher prices 2. Shareholders through smaller/fewer dividend payouts or 3. Employees through lower wages.   The paper argues that the tax burden mainly falls on the shareholders which is whoever owns the stock (capital income). Effectively investors and retirement accounts/mutual funds etc The answer to this question requires looking at the mathematics of the Qualified Dividends and Capital Gains Worksheet (QDCGW). Start with Taxable Income which is the number that appears on Line 43 of Form 1040.  This is after the Adjusted Gross Income has been reduced by the Standard Deduction or Itemized Deductions as the case may be, as well as the exemptions claimed.   Then, subtract off the Qualified Dividends and the Net Long-Term Capital Gains (reduced by Net Short-Term  Capital Losses, if any) to get the non-cap-gains part of the Taxable Income. Assigning somewhat different meanings to the numbers in the OPs' question, let's say that the Taxable Income is $74K of which $10K is Long-Term Capital Gains leaving $64K as the the non-cap-gains taxable income on Line 7 of the QDCGW.   Since $64K is smaller than $72.5K (not $73.8K as stated by the OP) and this is a MFJ return, $72.5K - $64K = $8.5K of the long-term capital gains are taxed at 0%. The balance $1.5K is taxed at 15% giving $225 as the tax due on that part.   The 64K of non-cap-gains taxable income has a tax of $8711 if I am reading the Tax Tables correctly, and so the total tax due is $8711+225 = $8936.  This is as it should be; the non-gains income of $64K was assessed the tax due on it, $8.5K of the cap gains were taxed at 0%, and $1.5K at 15%. There are more complications to be worked out on the QDCGW for high earners who attract the 20% capital gains rate but those are not relevant here. Sure you can. Obviously it means your company will make less profit, saving you 20% corporation tax, while your personal income will be higher, meaning you will likely spend more than 20% in income tax and National Insurance contributions. In Canada I think you'd do it as a % of square footage. For example: Then you can count 20% of the cost of the of renting the apartment as a business expense. I expect that conventions (i.e. that what's accepted rather than challenged by the tax authorities) may vary from country to country. "Tax US corporate ""persons (citizens)"" under the same regime as US human persons/citizens, i.e., file/pay taxes on all income earned annually with deductions for foreign taxes paid.  Problem solved for both shareholders and governments.  [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements)  &gt;If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, **you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.**  Thing is, we know solving this isn't the point.  It is to misdirect and talk about everything, but the actual issues, i.e., the discrepancy between tax regimes applied to persons and the massive inequality it creates in tax responsibility.  Because that would lead to the simple solutions that the populace need/crave.  My guess is most US human persons would LOVE to pay taxes only on what was left AFTER they covered their expenses." I use a spreadsheet for that.   I provide house value, land value, closing/fix-up costs, mortgage rate and years, tax bracket, city tax rate, insurance cost, and rental income.  Sections of the spreadsheet compute (in obvious ways) the values used for the following tables:  First I look at monthly cash flow (earnings/costs) and here are the columns:   Next section looks at changes in taxable reported income caused by the house,  And this too is monthly, even though it'll be x12 when you write your 1040.   The third table is shows the monthly cash flow, forgetting about maintenance and assuming you adjust your quarterlies or paycheck exemptions to come out even: Maintenance is so much of a wildcard that I don't attempt to include it.  My last table looks at paper (non-cash) equity gains:  I was asked how I compute some of those intermediate values.  My user inputs (adjusted for each property) are:  My intermediate values are: "The mortgage tax deduction can at most apply to two mortgages. IRS Publication 936 lays this out pretty clearly. There might be other deductions available if you are using the houses as a commercial entity, but that's more ""corporate taxes"" than ""personal taxes"". I know there are tax laws for dealing with interest, depreciation, capital expenses that businesses use." As I understand it, capital gains from real estate sales in India can be shielded from income tax entirely if the proceeds of the sale are invested in certain specific types of bonds (Rural Highway Contruction Authority of India?) for a period of three years beginning no later than x months (6 months?) after completion of the sale. Perhaps this applies to sales of inherited real estate only and not to commercial property or residential property acquired by purchase since there is no step-up of basis on death as occurs in the US, and in all likelihood, records of the purchase price of the inherited property are lost in the mists of time, and so the basis of the investment is effectively zero (or treated as such by the revenue authorities) The interest paid by these bonds is included in taxable income. Perhaps @Dheer will be willing to correct any mistakes in the above. So, it may be necessary to check whether (a) the interest income from the bonds was declared on Form 1040 Schedule B for each year (b) whether the appropriate boxes (the ones that ask whether the taxpayer has signature authority over foreign accounts etc) were checked on Schedule B or not, (c) whether Form TD 90-22.1 was filed each year or not (this is the FBAR requirement) Note that if the total value of the accounts is less than US $10K during the entire year, then the taxpayer is supposed to check NO on Schedule B and need not file Form TD 90-22.1.  Also, there is a separate requirement to file a Form 8938 for certain specific types of investments.  There was a two-part article describing these rules in Forbes magazine some time ago, and this is available on-line (Part 1 and  Part II) As @superjessi says, the IRS might be lenient if the only issue is not filing the forms in timely fashion, and the taxpayer is voluntarily coming into compliance even though the filing is late. They are likely to be less  forgiving if the foreign income was not reported, and still remains unreported even after filing the various forms. When you sell your primary residence, you are required to capitalize any loss or gain at that point; you do not carry over your loss or gain (as you might in an investment property).  As such, the timing of the purchase of the next house is not relevant in this discussion: you gained however much you gained already.  This changed from the other (rollover) method in 1997 (see this bankrate article for more details.) However, as discussed in IRS Tax Topic 701, you can exclude up to $250,000 (single or filing separately) or $500,000 (married filing jointly) of gain if it is your primary residence and meets a few requirements (mostly, that you owned it for at least 2 years in the past 5 years, and similarly used it as your main home for at least 2 years of the past 5 years).   So given you reported 25% gain, as long as your house is under a million dollars or so, you're fine (and if it's over a million dollars, you probably should be paying a CPA for this stuff). For California state tax, it looks like it is the same (see this Turbotax forum answer for a good explanation and links to this California Franchise Tax Board guide which confirms it: For sale or exchanges after May 6, 1997, federal law allows   an exclusion of gain on the sale of a personal residence in   the amount of $250,000 ($500,000 if married filing jointly).   The taxpayer must have owned and occupied the residence   as a principal residence for at least 2 of the 5 years before the   sale. California conforms to this provision. However, California   taxpayers who served in the Peace Corps during the 5 year   period ending on the date of the sale may reduce the 2 year   period by the period of service, not to exceed 18 months. According to the tax reform framework, changes to the current tax code would eliminate important provisions, such as the state and local tax deduction, while nearly doubling the standard deduction and eliminating personal and dependency exemptions. NAR believes the result would all but nullify the incentive to purchase a home for most, amounting to a de facto tax increase on homeowners, putting home values across the country at risk and ensuring that only the top 5 percent of Americans have the opportunity to benefit from the mortgage interest deduction.  This isn't good and serves no benefit. You would THINK someone with a background in real Estate would know this. It appears not.  There would also be a rise in rents as taxes go up. yes, i am incorporating monte carlo return scenarios for both equity and real estate.  yeah there is a lot to consider in the case of the property being a condo where you have to account for property taxes as well as condo fees.   the two projects have entirely different considerations and it's not like the money that is injected to one is similar to the other (very different) which is why i figured there should be differing discount rates.  in any case, thanks for the discussion and suggestions. Cost basis is irrelevant because the entire distribution is taxed as ordinary income even if the custodian distributes stock or mutual fund shares to you. Such distributions save you the brokerage fees that you would incur had you taken a cash distribution and promptly bought the shares outside the retirement account for yourself but they have no effect on the tax treatment of the distribution: the market value of the shares distributed to you is taxed as ordinary income, and your basis in the newly acquired shares outside the retirement account is the market value of the shares, all prices being as of the date of the distribution.