Money Structuring
"See ""Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited."" You absolutely run the risk of the accusation of structuring. One can move money via check, direct transfer, etc, all day long, from account to account, and not have a reporting issue. But, cash deposits have a reporting requirement (by the bank) if $10K or over. Very simple, you deposit $5000 today, and $5000 tomorrow. That's structuring, and illegal.  Let me offer a pre-emptive ""I don't know what frequency of $10000/X deposits triggers this rule. But, like the Supreme Court's, ""We have trouble defining porn, but we know it when we see it. And we're happy to have these cases brought to us,"" structuring is similarly not 100% definable, else one would shift a bit right."" You did not ask, but your friend runs the risk of gift tax issues, as he's not filing the forms to acknowledge once he's over $14,000." There's a difference between your street level drug dealer sending you sales proceeds of $20,000 in $5,000 increments to avoid sending you $10,000 or $20,000 at once to avoid the scrutiny of a government agency that might not be thrilled with your business venture, and a tire shop paying a wholesaler $5,000 each time funds are available up to the amount owed of $20,000. The former is illegal for a few reasons, and the latter is business as usual. Structuring, as noted in another answer, involves breaking up cash transactions to avoid the required reporting limits.   There are a couple of important things to note.   And, the biggest caveat - there have been many cases of perfectly legitimate transactions that have fallen foul of the reporting requirements.  One case springs to mind of a small business that routinely deposited the previous day's receipts as cash, and due to the size of the business, those deposits typically fell in the $9,000-$9,500 range.  This business ended up going through a lot of headaches and barely survived.  Some don't.   A single batch of transactions, if it is only 2 or 3 parts and they are separated by reasonable intervals, is not likely in and of itself to be suspicious.  However, any set of such transactions does run the risk of being flagged.   In your case, you also run afoul of the Know Your Customer rules, because it's not even you depositing the cash - it's your friend.  (Why can your friend not simply write you a check?  What is your friend doing with $5k of cash at a time?  How do you know he's not generating illegal income and using you to launder it for him?)  Were I your bank, you can be very certain I'd be reporting these transactions.  Just from this description, this seems questionable to me.   IRS seizes millions from law-abiding businesses In the Anti-Money Laundering World ( AML) , structuring consists of the division ( breaking up) of cash transactions, deposits and withdrawals, with the intent to avoid the Currency Transaction Reporting ( CTR) filings.  In your case the issue is not structuring but the fact that you have another person ( unknown to the bank) depositing cash , event if it is above the CTR threshold, for you to withdraw later .  The entire scenario raises a lot of questions.
Illustrating with a shorter example:  Suppose I deposit 1,000 USD. Every year I deposit another 100 USD. I want to know how much money will be on that savings account in 4 years.  The long-hand calculation is Expressed with a summation  And using the formula derived from the summation (as shown by DJohnM) So for 20 years Note in year 20 (or year 4 in the shorter example) the final $100 deposit does not have any time to accrue interest before the valuation of the account. "Gnucash is first and foremost just a general ledger system. It tracks money in accounts, and lets you make transactions to transfer money between the accounts, but it has no inherent concept of things like taxes. This gives you a large amount of flexibility to organize your account hierarchy the way you want, but also means that it sometimes can take a while to figure out what account hierarchy you want. The idea is that you keep track of where you get money from (the Income accounts), what you have as a result (the Asset accounts), and then track what you spent the money on (the Expense accounts). It sounds like you primarily think of expenses as each being for a particular property, so I think you want to use that as the basis of your hierarchy. You probably want something like this (obviously I'm making up the specifics): Now, when running transaction reports or income/expense reports, you can filter to the accounts (and subaccounts) of each property to get a report specific to that property. You mention that you also sometimes want to run a report on ""all gas expenses, regardless of property"", and that's a bit more annoying to do. You can run the report, and when selecting accounts you have to select all the Gas accounts individually. It sounds like you're really looking for a way to have each transaction classified in some kind of two-axis system, but the way a general ledger works is that it's just a tree, so you need to pick just one ""primary"" axis to organize your accounts by." The key to understanding where your money is going is to budget.  Rather than tracking your spending after the fact, budgeting lets you decide up front what you want to spend your money on.  This can be done with cash envelopes, on paper, or on Excel spreadsheets; however, in my opinion, the best, most flexible, and easiest way to do this is with budgeting software designed for this purpose. As I explained in another answer, when it comes to personal budgeting software, there are two different approaches: those in which you decide what to spend your money on before it is spent, and those that simply show you how your money was spent after it is gone.  I recommend the first approach.  Software designed to do this include YNAB, Mvelopes, and EveryDollar. My personal favorite is YNAB.  You'll find lots of help, video tutorials, and even online classes with a live teacher on YNAB's website.   Using one of these packages will help you manage spending, whether it is done electronically or with cash.  When you pay for something with a credit card, you enter your purchase into the software, and the software adjusts your budget as if the money is already spent, even if you haven't technically paid for the purchase yet. As far as strategy goes, here is what I recommend:  Get started on one of these, and set up your budget right away.  Assign a category to every dollar in your account.  Don't worry if it is not perfect.  If you find later on that you don't have enough money in one of your categories, you can move money from another category if you need to.  As you work with it, you'll get better at knowing how much money you need in each category. My other recommendation is this: Don't wait until the end of the month to download your transactions from the bank and fit everything into categories.  Instead, enter your spending transactions into the software manually, every day, as you spend.  This will do two things: first, you'll have the latest, up-to-date picture of where your accounts are in your software without having to guess.  Second, it will help you stay on top of your spending.  You'll be able to see early on if you are overspending in a particular category.  YNAB has a mobile app that I use quite a bit, but if I don't get a chance to enter a purchase right when I spend it, I make sure to keep a receipt, and enter the transaction in that evening.  It only takes a couple of minutes a day, and I always know how I stand financially. "Depositum irregulare is a Latin phrase that simply means ""irregular deposit."" It's a concept from ancient Roman contract law that has a very narrow scope and doesn't actually apply to your example. There are two distinct parts to this concept, one dealing with the notion of a deposit and the other with the notion of irregularity. I'll address them both in turn since they're both relevant to the tax issue. I also think that this is an example of the XY problem, since your proposed solution (""give my money to a friend for safekeeping"") isn't the right solution to your actual problem (""how can I keep my money safe""). The currency issue is a complication, but it doesn't change the fact that what you're proposing probably isn't a good solution. The key word in my definition of depositum irregulare is ""contract"". You don't mention a legally binding contract between you and your friend; an oral contract doesn't qualify because in the event of a breach, it's difficult to enforce the agreement. Legally, there isn't any proof of an oral agreement, and emotionally, taking your friend to court might cost you your friendship. I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that the absence of a contract implies that even though in the eyes of you and your friend, you're giving him the money for ""safekeeping,"" in the eyes of the law, you're simply giving it to him. In the US, you would owe gift taxes on these funds if they're higher than a certain amount. In other words, this isn't really a deposit. It's not like a security deposit, in which the money may be held as collateral in exchange for a service, e.g. not trashing your apartment, or a financial deposit, where the money is held in a regulated financial institution like a bank. This isn't a solution to the problem of keeping your money safe because the lack of a contract means you incur additional risk in the form of legal risk that isn't present in the context of actual deposits. Also, if you don't have an account in the right currency, but your friend does, how are you planning for him to store the money anyway? If you convert your money into his currency, you take on exchange rate risk (unless you hedge, which is another complication). If you don't convert it and simply leave it in his safe, house, car boot, etc. you're still taking on risk because the funds aren't insured in the event of loss.  Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily ""safe"" with your friend even if you ignore all the risks above. Without a written contract, you have little recourse if a) your friend decides to spend the money and not return it, b) your friend runs into financial trouble and creditors make claim to his assets, or c) you get into financial trouble and creditors make claims to your assets. The idea of giving money to another individual for safekeeping during bankruptcy has been tested in US courts and ruled invalid. If you do decide to go ahead with a contract and you do want your money back from your friend eventually, you're in essence loaning him money, and this is a different situation with its own complications. Look at this question and this question before loaning money to a friend. Although this does apply to your situation, it's mostly irrelevant because the ""irregular"" part of the concept of ""irregular deposit"" is a standard feature of currencies and other legal tender. It's part of the fungibility of modern currencies and doesn't have anything to do with taxes if you're only giving your friend physical currency. If you're giving him property, other assets, etc. for ""safekeeping"" it's a different issue entirely, but it's still probably going to be considered a gift or a loan. You're basically correct about what depositum irregulare means, but I think you're overestimating its reach in modern law. In Roman times, it simply refers to a contract in which two parties made an agreement for the depositor to deposit money or goods with the depositee and ""withdraw"" equivalent money or goods sometime in the future. Although this is a feature of the modern deposit banking system, it's one small part alongside contract law, deposit insurance, etc. These other parts add complexity, but they also add security and risk mitigation. Your arrangement with your friend is much simpler, but also much riskier.  And yes, there probably are taxes on what you're proposing because you're basically giving or loaning the money to your friend. Even if you say it's not a loan or a gift, the law may still see it that way. The absence of a contract makes this especially important, because you don't have anything speaking in your favor in the event of a legal dispute besides ""what you meant the money to be."" Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily safe with your friend, and the absence of a contract exacerbates this issue. If you want to keep your money safe, keep it in an account that's covered by deposit insurance. If you don't have an account in that currency, either a) talk to a lawyer who specializes in situation like this and work out a contract, or b) open an account with that currency. As I've stated, I'm not a lawyer, so none of the above should be interpreted as legal advice. That being said, I'll reiterate again that the concept of depositum irregulare is a concept from ancient Roman law. Trying to apply it within a modern legal system without a contract is a potential recipe for disaster. If you need a legal solution to this problem (not that you do; I think what you're looking for is a bank), talk to a lawyer who understands modern law, since ancient Roman law isn't applicable to and won't pass muster in a modern-day court." Line one shows your 1M, a return with a given rate, and year end withdrawal starting at 25,000.  So Line 2 starts with that balance, applies the rate again, and shows the higher withdrawal, by 3%/yr.  In Column one, I show the cumulative effect of the 3% inflation, and the last number in this column is the final balance (903K) but divided by the cumulative inflation.  To summarize - if you simply get the return of inflation, and start by spending just that amount, you'll find that after 20 years, you have half your real value.  The 1.029 is a trial and error method, as I don't know how a finance calculator would handle such a payment flow. I can load the sheet somewhere if you'd like.  Note: This is not exactly what the OP was looking for. If the concept is useful, I'll let it stand. If not, downvotes are welcome and I'll delete. "A DCF includes changes in working capital which is a source or use of cash.  I also don't like your characterization of enterprise value as ""cashless"" because it's also ""debtless"".  It's capital structure independent -- just like a DCF is.  **That's the common theme.**" "Correct!  But this is only true when a central bank is involved.  So if there's a single institution that has a territorial monopoly on the production of money (and competing currencies aren't allowed via ""legal tender laws""), then the debt-based money system OP describes isn't actually the system being used.  That's the problem with his post:  he's trying to make it seem like our current system of fiat currencies is somehow natural or emergent.  It's not.  What we have now is the result of a legal monopoly." "Other than the inconvienent fact that Treasury cannot sell to the Fed by law your theory is nice. You forget the step where the open market buys from the Treasury since they desire bonds to invest in, and the Fed can buy only from the open market.  Secondly, the Fed does not give cash to the Treasury. The mint (a branch of the Treasury, not the Fed) prints cash.  So it seems your understanding of how the money system works is quite wrong, yet since this is the Economy subreddit instead of the Economics subreddit, I expect you to get upvotes for saying what is popular even though it is laughably incorrect.  You seem to not like cash that was not ""even existing previously"". All cash was not existing previously. How do you expect people to make transactions? Barter?  You call them interest free loans (but above claimed they will never be paid back?), but then the Fed is making a profit on them? It seems you contradict yourself with all that handwaving.  It would be interesting for you to explain how (and why) money (not cash) gets added and removed to the economy.   Yay for ignorance!" So how would you regulate the financial sector to keep one ridiculous horde or powerhouse of cash from ruling it, and keep money flowing through the whole system rather than stagnating or spiraling to a small sector?  These questions also bring to mind rivers versus blood vessels.  In rivers, you get eddies and pools.  In the circulatory system, eddies and pools lead to health issues, much like hording and enclosed loops create stagnation or poor financial health.  Just an observation. There is no slack of money.  People who are saving their money don't have it stored under their mattress.  Instead they have it saved in a bank that is in turn being loaned out at the lowest rates in history.  All of this manipulation of the economy has finally caught up to us and the last thing we need is more manipulation.  We just have to let the bad investments and the misallocations weed out first.  I agree with you that it's a tough thing to endure in the short term but it will help us in the long term. "The best I could come up with would be to simply ask for the amount of ""notes"" and ""coins"" you would like, and specify denominations thereof.  The different currency labels exist for the reason that not all of them are valued the same, so USD 100 is not the same as EUR 100. To generalize would mean some form of uniformity in the values, that just isn't there." "This is the biggest blunder I see in money handling.  ""Oh I'm a good person and everyone knows my intentions are good.  And they're really happy with me right now, so it'll stay that way forever, right?  So I can just do anything and they'll trust me.""  And then in hindsight 10 years later, the person realizes ""wow, I was really stubborn and selfish to just assume that.  No wonder it blew up.""  Anyway, to that end, your requirement that all the money be in one account and ""this will simplify taxes"" is horsepuckey.  No one will believe a legitimate financial advisor needs that, but it's exactly what a swindler would do. And that's the problem.  If anything goes wrong, their trust in you will be forgotten, some will say you intended to scam all along, and the structure will be the first thing to convict you.   Money makes everyone mistrusting.  Ironically, the concept is called a ""trust"", and there's a wide body of law and practice for Person X responsibly handling the money of Person Y.  The classic example is Person Y is a corporation (say, a charity) and Person X is on the Board of Directors.  It's the same basic thing.   The doctrine is:" That sounds interesting.. As I was looking through some articles on [wealth management](http://www.millionairemindevents.com/) the same question came into my mind. Where did money originated. It would be interesting to read some books about it. Thanks for the suggestion. I agree with mbhunter's suggestion of labeling your columns, 'income' and 'expenses'. However, to answer your question, money coming in (a paycheque, for example) is credited to your account. Money going out (a utility bill, for example) is debited from your account. There's no real 'why'... this is simply the definition of the words. Can you offer an alternative solution?   Sounds like you are not well versed in the reasoning for fiat money. Before trying to pass opinions that you have not formed on your own I would do some research.   So go ahead, I challenge you. What is a better way?