Are U.S. salaries typically measured/reported before tax, or after tax?
"In the U.S., virtually all salaries are expressed as ""gross salaries"", which are before the taxes that the individual must pay on their income. The numbers shown in the links are almost certainly gross salary figures. However, the ""gross salary"" is not the entire ""total compensation"" number, which is the total value of all compensation and benefits that the employee receives for his work. Total compensation includes not only salary and bonuses, but the cost or value of any employer-paid healthcare, retirement, company car, expense account, stock options, and other valuable goods or services. That's still not the total amount of money the company has to pay to have you; there are employer-paid payroll taxes totaling 6.2% of your gross salary, plus practical costs like the cost of your computer, cubicle or office furniture, and the portion of utility costs that keep you well-lit, clean and comfortable. This complete number is called ""total employee cost"", and the general rule of thumb is that it's double your gross cash compensation (salary + bonuses). Lastly, $100k in California isn't worth as much, in real terms, as $100k in other parts of the U.S. The cost of living in California, especially in Silicon Valley where the majority of the people who make six figures by being C++ programmers are located, is ridiculously expensive. There are other tech hubs in the U.S., like DFW, Austin TX, Atlanta GA, St Louis MO, Raleigh NC, etc where people earn less, but also spend less to live and so can use more of their salary in a ""discretionary"" manner."
Everyone pays their personal income tax with funds from their employer;  some of it through withholding, and the rest through the balance due at the time of filing. All that is happening here is that the company is calculating  your personal tax return for you, and fiddling retroactively with the gross salary to yield a specific after-tax salary. One problem is that there is a lot of information I put in my return to earn deductions, that I would not care to tell my employer.   The system would also appear to be contrary to public policy.  Governments create tax deductions to give a larger income to those with socially acceptable expenses:  health care, dependents,  etc.  The system you describe would give employees with such deductions a lower gross salary. The tax is depended upon state where you are registered and the salary paid. More here  If you employ contract you need not pay tax. Your federal taxes in US include the tax which Indian government wants back from you under the treaty with US government. Some countries have treaty with US where all the money person earns in US can be reclaimed at the end of the financial year i.e no money goes to the country of citizenship. However, Indian citizens working in US are not liable for 100% reclaim on their federal tax. In Sri Lanka, this is the normal practice. We, employees are free from the burden of paying tax for the income we get as a salary. Because that part is been taken care of by the company/employer. This often occurs because of misrepresentation of the corporation income. Most of the income in the US is payed at or a little below the 35% rate... But when the figure is calculated non-US income is counted alongside US income.  For some reason, in the US it makes sense for corporations to pay income taxes in the countries they actually made the income in AND the US. Mind you... Only USA and Eritrea have this sort of backwards thinking.  So yeah... If they make $100 worldwide income, out of which $50 is US income, and the company reports $15 in US taxes, they get represented as paying 15% effective tax rate when in reality they payed 30% on US taxes for their US income. Corporations are taxed on their profits.  Multinational corporations can report their profits in any country they have operations, regardless of where they made the sale.  In other words, it's impossible to nail down exactly where a company 'made it's money'.  So the US doesn't try, we just tax them on earnings everywhere, minus taxes paid elsewhere.  edit for clarity The withholding tax is considerred income tax that is submitted early. Note that the above withholding tax amounts are only estimates, which you will show on your tax return as taxes already remitted. Taxtips website Bingo. Measuring income is an ignorant approach. Buying power is the only thing that is important.   If the $14/hr minimum wage nonsense ever actually happened, all the reports would be on how awesome it is that some small percentage of people are making more money. What won't be reported right away is how all people (include those minimum wage workers) have significantly less buying power thanks to the significant inflation created by $14 minimum wage. Salaries and etc are a business expense and chargeable against revenue for tax purposes.  It is NOT tax deductible but it is an expense on an income statement in calculating net profit (after tax).  You could say salary &amp; etc are tax effective but not tax deductible. There are two problems with your understanding: The companies I have worked for match based on a percentage of your salary. That is a percentage of your gross pay. It was not based on the percentage of your net pay or after-tax pay. Net pay would be too hard to know. What I mean is the amount of insurance, HSA, Flex spending accounts, etc. determine how much is taxable and thus what is your after-tax pay . In fact if you split between the Roth and Pre-tax forms of the 401K your retirement contribution would influence the amount of the after tax contribution. All matching funds no matter the nature of the contribution (pre-tax, post-tax, Roth) are always considered pre-tax. You didn't pay taxes on the money when it was credited to your account. I assume the OP is the US and that he is, like most people, a cash-basis tax payer and not an accrual basis tax payer. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying  was reported  as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms but the corresponding income  tax was not withheld.  If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion,  then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Nor is the company entitled to withhold tax on this income for 2010 and 2011 at this time; the tax on that income has already been paid by the OP directly to the IRS and the company has nothing to do with the matter anymore. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying  was NOT reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms.  If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion,  then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Should the OP have declared the value of the rental of the unit as additional income from his employer that was not reported on the W-2 form, and paid taxes  on that money? Possibly, but it would be reasonable to argue that the OP did nothing wrong other than not checking his W-2 form carefully: he simply assumed the income numbers included the value of the rental and copied whatever the company-issued W-2 form said onto his 1040 form. At least as  of now, there is no reason for the IRS to question his 2010 and 2011 returns because the numbers reported to the IRS on Copy A of the W-2 forms match the numbers reported by the OP on his tax returns.    My guess is that the company discovered that it had not actually declared the value of the rental payments on the OP's W-2 forms for 2010 and 2011 and now wants to include this amount as income on subsequent W-2 forms. Now, reporting a lump-sum benefit of $38K (but no actual cash)  would have caused a huge amount of income tax to need to be withheld, and the OP's next couple of paychecks might well have had zero take-home pay as all the money was going towards this tax withholding. Instead, the company is saying that it will report the $38K as income in 78 equal installments (weekly paychecks over 18 months?)  and withhold $150 as the tax due on each installment. If it does not already do so, it will likely also include the value of the current rent as a benefit and withhold tax on that too. So the OP's take-home pay will reduce by $150 (at least) and maybe more if the current rental payments also start appearing on the paychecks and tax is withheld from them too. I will not express an opinion on the legality of the company withholding an additional $150 as tax from the OP's paycheck, but will suggest that the solution proposed by the company (have the money appear as taxable benefits over a 78-week period, have tax withheld, and declare the income on your  2012, 2013 and 2014 returns) is far more beneficial to the OP than the company declaring to the IRS that it made a  mistake on the 2010 and 2011 W-2's issued to the OP, and that the actual income paid was higher. Not only will the OP have to file amended returns for 2010 and 2011 but the company will need to amend its tax returns too. In summary, the OP needs to know that He will have to pay taxes on the value of the waived rental payments   for 2010 and 2011. The company's mistake in not declaring this as income to the OP   for 2010 and 2011 does not absolve him of the responsibility   for paying the taxes What the company is proposing is a very reasonable solution to the   problem of recovering from the mistake. The alternative, as @mhoran_psprep points out, is to amend   your 2010 and 2011 federal and state tax returns to declare the   value of the rental during those years as additional income,   and pay taxes (and possibly penalties) on the additional   amount due. This takes the company completely out of the picture,   but does require a lot more work and a lot more cash now rather   than in the future. "Gifts given and received between business partners or employers/employees are treated as income, if they are beyond minimal value. If your boss gives you a gift, s/he should include it as part of your taxable wages for payroll purposes - which means that some of your wages should be withheld to cover income, social security, and Medicare taxes on it. At the end of the year, the value of the gift should be included in Box 1 (wages) of your form W-2. Assuming that's the case, you don't need to do anything special. A 1099-MISC would not be appropriate because you are an employee of your boss - so the two of you need to address the full panoply of employment taxes, not just income tax, which would be the result if the payment were reported on 1099-MISC. If the employer wants to cover the cost to you of the taxes on the gift, they'll need to ""gross up"" your pay to cover it. Let's say your employer gives you a gift worth $100, and you're in a 25% tax bracket. Your employer has to give you $125 so that you end up with a gain of $100. But the extra $25 is taxable, too, so your employer will need to add on an extra $6.25 to cover the 25% tax on the $25. But, wait, now we've gotta pay 25% tax on the $6.25, so they add an extra $1.56 to cover that tax. And now they've gotta pay an extra $.39 . . .  The formula to calculate the gross-up amount is: where [TAX RATE] is the tax rate expressed as a percentage. So, to get the grossed-up amount for a $100 gift in a 25% bracket, we'd calculate 1/(1-.25), or 1/.75, or 1.333, multiply that by the target gift amount of $100, and end up with $133.33.  The equation is a little uglier if you have to pay state income taxes that are deductible on the federal return but it's a similar principle.  The entire $133.33 would then be reported as income, but the net effect on the employee is that they're $100 richer after taxes. The ""gross-up"" idea can be quite complicated if you dig into the details - there are some circumstances where an additional few dollars of income can have an unexpected impact on a tax return, in a fashion not obvious from looking at the tax table.  If the employer doesn't include the gift in Box 1 on the W-2 but you want to pay taxes on it anyway, include the amount in Line 7 on the 1040 as if it had been on a W-2, and fill out form 8919 to calculate the FICA taxes that should have been withheld." "What theyre fishing for is whether the money was earned in the U.S.  It's essentially an interest shelter, and/or avoiding double taxation.   They're saying if you keep income you make outside the US in a bank inside the US, the US thanks you for storing your foreign money here and doesn't tax the interest (but the nation where you earned that income might).   There is no question that the AirBNB income is ""connected with a US trade or business"".   So your next question is whether the fraction of interest earned from that income can be broken out, or whether IRS requires you to declare all the interest from that account.   Honestly given the amount of tax at stake, it may not be worth your time researching.   Now since you seem to be a resident nonresident alien, it seems apparent that whatever economic value you are creating to earn your salary, is being performed in the United States. If this is for an American company and wages paid in USD, no question, that's a US trade or business. But what if it's for a Swedish company running on Swedish servers, serving Swedes and paid in Kroner to a Swedish bank which you then transfer to your US bank? Does it matter if your boots are on sovereign US soil?  This is a complex question, and some countries (UK) say ""if your boots are in our nation, it is trade/income in our nation""... Others (CA) do not.  This is probably a separate question to search or ask. To be clear, the fact that your days as a teacher or trainee do not count toward residency, is a separate question from whether your salary as same counts as US income." &gt; Posted tax rates vs actual effective rates differ, but you know that.  Yeah, but correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't the allowable deductions which can drag the actual rate down only applicable for stuff that happens inside the US? Therefore, wouldn't any foreign sourced income always be taxed at the marginal rate?  Also, the US still has high actual rates too. [It's not exactly like other countries don't have the concept of deductions as well.](http://taxfoundation.org/sites/default/files/docs/sr195.pdf) I was looking for ideas on what the usual figures are in such positions. Something like market value, or other terms such as changing slab percentages in compensation. Not sure what the best practices are in this situation.  Not sure what you are referring to.