What does a reorganization fee that a company charges get applied to?
"Its a broker fee, not something charged by the reorganizing company. E*Trade charge $20, TD Ameritrade charge $38. As with any other bank fee - shop around. If you know the company is going to do a split, and this fee is of a significant amount for you - move your account to a different broker. It may be that some portion of the fee is shared by the broker with the shares managing services provider of the reorgonizing company, don't know for sure. But you're charged by your broker. Note that the fees differ for voluntary and involuntary reorganizations, and also by your stand with the broker - some don't charge their ""premier"" customers."
"The first 3 are the same as owning stock in a company would be measured in shares and would constitute some percentage of the overall shares outstanding. If there are 100 shares in the company in total, then owning 80 shares is owning 80% is the same as owning 80% of the common stock. This would be the typical ownership case though there can also be ""Restricted stock"" as something to note here. Convertible debt would likely carry interest charges as well as the choice at the end of becoming stock in the company. In this case, until the conversion is done, the stock isn't issued and thus isn't counted. Taking the above example, one could have a note that could be worth 10 shares but until the conversion is done, the debt is still debt. Some convertible debt could carry options or warrants for the underlying stock as there was the Berkshire convertible notes years ago that carried a negative interest rate that was studied in ""The Negative Coupon Bond"" if you want an example here. Options would have the right but not the obligation to buy the stock where there are ""Incentive Stock Options"" to research this in more depth. In this case, one could choose to not exercise the option and thus no stock changes hands. This is where some companies will experience dilution of ownership as employees and management may be given options that put more shares out to the public. Issuing debt wouldn't change the ownership and isn't direct ownership unless the company goes through a restructuring where the creditors become the new stock holders in the case of a Chapter 11 situation in the US. Note that this isn't really investing in a small business as much as it is making a loan to the company that will be paid back in cash. If the company runs into problems then the creditor could try to pursue the assets of the company to be repaid." "If you owe the money to A, and B owes you money and goes bankrupt, that has no effect whatsoever on your loan from A.   Obviously.   Your best bet -- while you still owe and are owed by the same company -- is either get them to agree to apply your credit to your debt (reducing it to $30,000) -- or rush to the courthouse and ask a judge to order this done.   You want to do this well before the bankruptcy is filed; too close and someone could object to you having been paid preferentially or ""out of turn"" -- and claw back the money, meaning you now owe it to the bankruptcy trustee.   Your debt to them is, from their perspective, an asset.  It is an asset with a cash value (based on the probability of people in that portfolio paying).  It can be sold to gain some immediate cash instead of more cash over a time period.  This is routine in the debt world.  Before or during the throes of bankruptcy, and depending on what the reorganization plan is, the bank is quite likely to sell your debt to someone else to raise cash - typically a distress sale for a fraction of its principal value (e.g. 20% or $10,000).  That goes into the pool of money to pay creditors such as yourself, and if you're lucky, you'll get some of it.   So good on you, you got $2000 back from the bank and now you owe someone else $50,000.  I'm assuming they owe you $20,000 for IT services or because you put a new roof on their branch, or something like that.  If it's money on deposit at the bank, then two things are true: First, pre-bankruptcy, you can trivially command the bank to dump the entire $20,000 into paying down the debt.  Instantly: done, and irreversible.  The bankruptcy trustee can't claw that back because it was never the bank's money, it was yours.   Second, any civilized country has deposit insurance, which they typically implement by helping another bank buy out your bank, and continue to honor your deposits, so this is seamless and hands-off for you. Your old checks continue to work, your branch just changes their sign.   This deposit insurance has limits, which is only a problem for the very rich (who are dumb enough to put over the limit in one bank)." I'm not a fan of spending time negotiating prices within the company; that's just a waste of time, but I think assigning costs appropriately is important to evaluating the segment or department performance.  If the internal sales are done across borders there are tax impacts and you are required to charge a market rate.  Transfer pricing is a hot topic within the accounting industry If I were you, I would go to the bank right now, pay the $100 and close the account.  I would stop the bleeding first then consider the fallout later.   Do you own the account jointly with your partner(s) as a partner or does the partnership (a separate formal entity) own the bank account with you a named representative?  Those are two very different situations. If you're a joint owner, you're liable for the fees; along with your other partners in accordance with your partnership agreement.  You never closed yourself off the account and that's your problem. If the dissolved partnership owns the account, you're not personally liable for the fees.  You were never a personal owner of the account, now that the account is negative you don't magically become personally liable. The differences here are very nuanced and the details matter.  If this were a large amount of money I'd suggest you go see a lawyer.  Since this is about $100 I'd just pay it, make sure the account is closed, and move on. "Fees & liabilities Yes, the first problem is that liabilities are being improperly booked. If the fee you charge is fixed upon deposit then the fee should credit ""Revenue"", the fee charged to you should be booked by crediting cash and then debiting ""Expenses"", and the remaining should be booked as a liability. If the fee is fixed upon withdrawal then this will become more complex because of the fact that a change in the fee can occur before it can be applied.  In this case, the current fee should be credited as ""Revenue"" and some ""Allowance for fee increase"" should also be credited.  The amount owed to the withdrawer should be booked as a liability as before. Multiple currency bookings I will assume that this is for a cryptocurrency service of some sort considering the comments in your question and your presence on bitcoin.se. Accounting can become very dangerous when mixing denominations.  This is why all major accounting standards mandate books be maintained single currency. In your case, if the deposit is in USD, for example, and the liability is in BTC then two books must be maintained, one for each. To account for your operation properly using single currency accounts, the denominations must be exchanged internally and balanced across the two sets of books. For a deposit of BTC/depository of USD, the operation would be the same as described above, but then the cash should be credited away and the liabilities debited away from the USD books with simultaneous cash debits and liability credits on the BTC books. Considering the extreme volatility of cryptocurrency exchange rates, denominating accounts on the wrong set of books will quickly lead to insolvency or loss from improper accounting or both. From revenue to income Revenue can be construed as a liability since it could theoretically exist on the balance sheet. I mention this because all books, despite their name and quarter, are really simply long T accounts, like a blockchain.  A blockchain could be subdivided into users' individual income statements & balance sheets, as the reverse of this concept. Revenues are credited, expenses are debited.  The difference, ""net income"", is debited away with a credit to ""owners' equity""." "We used an internal billing system where we have Project numbers, overheads, and proposal numbers. Projects may or may not have a client backing them, Overheads are strictly that, overhead costs.  In the chargeback system we utilize (written by yours truly) we devised an SLO (Service Level Offering) which is the default, PC and Default software such as Office, Adobe Reader, Windows etc... and the hardware itself plus depreciation. This, when analyzed with total Business Unit working manhours, can devise an hourly rate that we apply to all Projects/Overheads/Proposals through time booked to these account through the Timecard system. A rate of 3.00 per manhour worked is applied accross the business Unit.  Additional costs are divied by percentage based on Timecards. If Employee A charges 50% time to Project 1, 40% to Project 2 and 10% to project C, then those percentages will be applied to divy out the additional IT costs to the various projects, and thus making these items billable back to the client. This lowers our Overhead costs, transfers cost from Cost Centre to Profit Centre and lowers our GMAF.  As for external to IT, it often prevents shit from getting done. ""Hey man, can you help me for a second?"" ""RAAAAAAWWW GIMME CHARGE NUMBER!!!!!!!!"" and creates internal animosity between project managers." "If all of the relocation expenses are paid by your employer to the moving companies, then you should not have any tax liability for those payments. Relocation expenses should be treated as normal business expenses by your employer. Note I emphasize ""should"" because it's possible that your employer ""could"" consider it income to you, but companies generally do not go out of their way to classify normal business expenses as income since it costs both them and you more money in taxes. As a side note, the reason your company is paying these expenses directly is probably to lessen the likelihood of these expenses being questioned in an audit (in comparison to if they cut you a reimbursement check which could get more scrutiny)." The company can not collect interest on that money.  The bank that processes the company payroll will give the company lower fees to use the debit card because the bank will then be able to charge the employees fees for low balance, out of network atm, and overdraft. "If you are talking about a home office, you don't ""charge"" the business anything. If the area is used exclusively as an office you pro-rate by square footage just the actual expenses.  TurboTax recent published an article ""Can I Take the Home Office Deduction?"" which is a must read if you don't understand the process. (Note: I authored said article.)" Banks, the big ones, have shareholders and the board to answer to.  Credit Unions have members and the board to answer to.  You become a member by joining a CU. Banks' prime objective is profit maximization, a credit union's prime objective is members' welfare.   Personal experience: I didn't mind that the banks charge fees, what was frustrating was keeping up with the policy changes.  Have X amount to avoid Y fees.  Once you fulfill that, do something else to avoid some other fees.  You miss one notice and you'll pay dearly!  This constant jumping of hoops was enough to switch. Not saying CUs don't change rules, but in my opinion, not as frequently as big banks.  On fee, for instance, my overdraft with my CU is $5.  With BofA it was something like $35 before regulations put a cap on such ridiculous fees. All request and new cases are productively evaluated and screened online at Contact Us. Introductory consultations, LLC formations, and records for routine land and business exchanges are taken care of only online at prudent level expenses. A scope of Delaware llc in-office benefits after the underlying conference is offered yet at expenses higher than those cited for online things. We will keep you refreshed all through the procedure. We give steady correspondence and continuous notices as we process your incorporation. To sum up: My question came from misunderstanding what cost basis applies to. Now I get it that it applies to stocks as physical entities. Consider a chain of buys of 40 stock A with prices $1-$4-$10-$15 (qty 10 each time) then IRS wants to know exactly which stock I am selling. And when I transfer stocks to different account, that cost basis transfers with them. Cost basis is included in transfers, so that removes ambiguity which stock is being sold on the original account. In the example above, cost basis of 20 stocks moved to a new account would probably be $1 x 10 and $4 x 10, i.e. FIFO also applies to transfers. I litigated several of these cases to settlement back in 2011-2013 (the cases that followed on the Wells Fargo settlement out in NDCA).  Many many banks were using the same few consultants who were pitching the same few computer programs to re-order transactions in order to maximize fee revenue.  It was becoming standard industry practice until Judge Alsup entered the $200mm+ judgment against Wells Fargo for their California customers.  After that, lawyers did what we do and descended on any other bank doing the same thing.  As part of the settlements, the banks agreed to stop reordering transactions to maximize fee revenue (typically agreeing to order deposits first, then debits as they were presented to the bank).   Class action attorneys get a bad rap (sometimes justifiably so), but there are many more instances like this where we catch bad actors actually hurting people. Well, yes it does, but just because the debt is trading at 80 cents on the dollar doesn't mean that the company can actually legally get away with paying only 80 cents on the dollar. They would have to come to an agreement with the debt holders first. And perhaps they could, but the more conservative approach is to use the book value of the debt.  Or what about debt that's trading at a premium to its face value, because, say, interest rates have come down relative to the time the debt was issued? The amount that the conpany owes to the debt holders hasn't suddenly gone up. "An order is your command to the broker to, say, ""sell 100 shares of AAPL"". An executed order (or partially executed order) is when all (or some) of that command is successfully completed. A transaction is an actual exchange of shares for money, and there may be one or more transactions per executed order.  For example, the broker might perform all of the following 5 transactions in order to do what you asked: On the other hand, if the broker cannot execute your order, then 0 transactions have taken place. The fee schedule you quote is saying that no matter how many transactions the broker has to perform in order to fill your order -- and no matter what the share prices are -- they're only going to charge you $0.005 per share ($0.50 in this example of 100 shares), subject to certain limits. However, as it says at the top of the page you linked, Our Fixed pricing for stocks, ETFs (Exchange Traded Products, or ETPs) and warrants charges a fixed amount per share or a set percent of trade value, and includes all IB commissions, exchange and most regulatory fees with the exception of the transaction fees, which are passed through on all stock sales. certain transaction fees are passed through to the client.  The transaction fee you included above is the SEC fee on sales.  Many (but not all) transaction fees DO depend on the prices of the shares involved; as a result they cannot be called ""fixed"" fees. For example, if you sell 100 shares of AAPL at $150 each, But if you sell 100 shares of AMZN at $940 each, So the broker will charge you the same $0.50 on either of those orders, but the SEC will charge you more for the expensive AMZN shares than for the cheaper AAPL shares. The reason this specific SEC fee mentions aggregate sales rather than trade value is because this particular SEC fee applies only to the seller and not to the buyer.  So they could have written aggregate trade value, but they probably wanted to highlight to the reader that the fee is only charged on sells."