Implications of receiving small amounts of money on the side
HMRC may or may not find out about it; the risks and penalties involved if they do find out make it unwise not to just declare it and pay the tax on it. Based on the fact you asked the question, I am assuming that you currently pay all your tax through PAYE and don't do a tax return. You would need to register for Self Assessment and complete a return; this is not at all difficult if your tax situation is straightforward, which it sounds like yours is. Then you would owe the tax on the additional money, at whatever applicable rate (which depends on how much you earn in your main job, the rate tables are here: https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates/current-rates-and-allowances ). If it truly is a one off you could simply declare it on your return as other income, but if it is more than that then you would need to look at setting up as Self Employed - there is some good advice on the differences here: http://www.brighton-accountants.com/blog/tax-self-employment-still-employed/ :  Broadly, you are likely to be running a business if you have a regular, organised activity with a profit motive, which continues for at least a few months. If the work is one-off, or very occasional (say, a few times per year), or not very organised, or of very low value (say, under £2,000 per year), then it might qualify as casual income. If you think it is beyond the definition of casual income then you would also need to pay National Insurance, as described in the previous link, but otherwise the tax treatment would be the same.
Q: If I call a tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have?   A: 4. You can call it whatever you want, it's still a tail. The scenario is nonsense. There is a quid pro quo, the waitress served the customer and he tipped her. A $7 tip on a $24.47 check. He was generous, but misguided if he thought that this note would let the tip go untaxed.  And even though the article you link is fresh, the author has the gift threshold incorrect. This year it's $14,000, and has been so since 2013.  A cute story, and unlikely to be an issue for $7, but the IRS would take notice if this idea gained any traction.  Two references - If Gifts Are Not Income, Why Tax Gratuities? From the Tax Court Files: Is That Money a Gift or Income? Thank you for the quick reply. My main firm pretty much sets us up as individual practices with limited support as far as customer service. The clients are ours to take care of. There is not a formal small account policy I am aware of, though I will confirm this next week.   I am considering delegating a current assistant, who is training to be a rep, to take care of these clients under my close supervision. It might be good experience for him and a way I can still profit.   I wouldn't want to lose these clients because a) they might mature or bring referrals, and b) there are individuals in need of at least some insurance to protect their families. "I don't think it would be counted as income, and if it's a short-term loan it doesn't really matter as the notional interest on the loan would be negligible. But you can avoid any possible complications by just having two accounts in the name of the person trying to get the account benefits, particularly if you're willing to just provide the ""seed"" money to get the loop started." "As the other answer said, the person who owns the lent stock does not benefit directly.  They may benefit indirectly in that brokers can use the short lending profits to reduce their fees or in that they have the option to short other stocks at the same terms.   Follow-up question: what prevents the broker lending the shares for a very short time (less than a day), pocketing the interest and returning the lenders their shares without much change in share price (because borrowing period was very short). What prevents them from doing that many times a day ? Lack of market.   Short selling for short periods of time isn't so common as to allow for ""many"" times a day.  Some day traders may do it occasionally, but I don't know that it would be a reliable business model to supply them.  If there are enough people interested in shorting the stock, they will probably want to hold onto it long enough for the anticipated movement to happen.   There are transaction costs here.  Both fees for trading at all and the extra charges for short sale borrowing and interest.  Most stocks do not move down by large enough amounts ""many"" times a day.  Their fluctuations are smaller.  If the stock doesn't move enough to cover the transaction fees, then that seller lost money overall.  Over time, sellers like that will stop trading, as they will lose all their money.   All that said, there are no legal blocks to loaning the stock out many times, just practical ones.  If a stock was varying wildly for some bizarre reason, it could happen." I'm not sure this is a safe assumption, necessarily. If the take is sufficient to permanently satiate whatever monetary need motivated the initial crime, risk in the ratio will remain the same but reward will be significantly altered. Having little wealth and gaining a great deal of wealth is different from having a great deal of wealth and getting even more wealth. As the risk/reward ratio would change, the decision-making process would not be the same. Ok so Arbitrage?  I was looking specifically at the people who took this deal to the extreme taking the $5k and using the $10 giftcards to buy prepaid credit cards.  Would the better term would be positive-feedback loop, since the only constraint would be time and energy to the people exploit this deal.  Is there a financial term that fits this better? "No, but it's serving the same purpose, which is to hide the original origin of a sum of money. Both examples involve moving money from one source to another, when both the source and the sink are in actuality the same entity managed and run by the same people. Both involve doing it in order to hide the money from those who would otherwise have a right to a portion of it. In this case, it is those with a right on the ""net"". In Starbucks UK, it's the UK government." "Well, I'd probably need to buy a lot more [Tide](http://nymag.com/news/features/tide-detergent-drugs-2013-1) to hide any purchases I don't want Uncle Sam to know about (not just drugs, either - When's the last time you paid sales tax at a yard sale?).   Other than that, I doubt it would matter much.  99.9% of my financial transactions are *already* on plastic, and I regularly keep the same ""emergency $20 bill"" in my wallet for months at a time." CTRs are made all the time, and yes, the banks do need to consider one-off transactions that aren't $10,000 per se but amount effectively to $10,000 or more. But if you're doing nothing improper, just pay your bill and be done with it.  No need to split it up just for this reason. It means someone's getting paid too much. I'd check the sharpe ratio and compare that to similar funds along with their expense ratio. So in some scenarios it's not necessarily a bad thing but being informed is the important thing "With (1), it's rather confusing as to where ""interest"" refers to what you're paying and where it refers to what you're being paid, and it's confusing what you expect the numbers to work out to be. If you have to pay normal interest on top of sharing the interest you receive, then you're losing money. If the lending bank is receiving less interest than the going market rate, then they're losing money. If the bank you've deposited the money with is paying more than the going market rate, they're losing money. I don't see how you imagine a scenario where someone isn't losing money. For (2) and (3), you're buying stocks on margin, which certainly is something that happens, but you'll have to get an account that is specifically for margin trading. It's a specific type of credit with specific rules, and you if you want to engage in this sort of trading, you should go through established channels rather than trying to convert a regular loan into margin trading. If you get a personal loan that isn't specifically for margin trading, and buy stocks with the money, and the stocks tank, you can be in serious trouble. (If you do it through margin trading, it's still very risky, but not nearly as risky as trying to game the system. In some cases, doing this makes you not only civilly but criminally liable.) The lending bank absolutely can lose if your stocks tank, since then there will be nothing backing up the loan." Your math is fine, except employers might not permit the withdrawal. You'd have to go back to their rules or contact HR to understand the withdrawals permitted. "I think what those articles are saying is: ""If you want to leave some money to charity and some to relatives, don't bequeath a Roth to charity while bequeathing taxable accounts to relatives.""  In other words, it's not ""bad"" to leave a Roth IRA to charity, it's just not as good as giving it to humans, if there are humans you want to give money to. In your situation, the total amount you want to leave to relatives is less than the value of your Roth.  So it sounds like the advice as it applies to you is: ""Don't leave your relatives $30K from your taxable funds while leaving the whole Roth to charity.  Instead, leave $30K of your Roth to your relatives, while leaving all the taxable funds to charity (along with the leftover $20K of the Roth).""  In other words, the Roth is a ""last resort"" for charitable giving --- only give away Roth money to charity if you already gave humans all the money you want to give them.  (I'm unsure of the details of how you would actually designate portions of the Roth for different beneficiaries, but some googling suggests it is possible.)" If you are looking at long-term investments then you can look to Dheer's answer and see that it doesn't matter whether the money is large or small, the return will be the same.  When it comes to shorter-term investments, it can actually pay to be a smaller investor. Consider a stock that may not be trading in high volume. If I want to take a position for 2,000 shares, I can probably buy it quite quickly without moving the market considerably.  If I was managing your hypothetical portfolio opening a position for 1,000,000 shares, it can cause the price to go up significantly because I have to execute the order very carefully in order to not tip my hand to the market that I want a million shares.  Algorithmic traders will see the volume increasing on those shares and will raise their asking price. High speed traders and market makers will also cause a lot of purchasing overhead. Then later when it comes time to sell, I will lose a percentage to the price drop as I start flooding the market with available shares. It will not be a problem; people regularly move larger sums. It will be reported to law authorities as large enough to be potentially of interest, but since you can explain it that's fine.