Capital gains and flow through tax treatment
For some reason this can result in either   the flow through income being UNTAXED or the flow through income being   taxed as a capital gains. Either way this allows a lower tax rate for   LLC profits. I'm not sure that correct. I know it has something to do   with capital accounts. This is incorrect. As to capital accounts - these are accounts representing the members/partners' capital in the enterprise, and have nothing to do with the tax treatment of the earnings. Undistributed earnings add to the capital accounts, but they're still taxed. Also, is it true that if the LLC loses money, that loss can be offset   against other taxable income resulting in a lower total taxation? It can offset taxable income of the same kind, just like any other losses on your tax return. Generally, flow-through taxation of partnerships means that the income is taxed to the partner with the original attributes. If it is capital gains - it is taxed as capital gains. If it is earned income - it is taxed as earned income. Going through LLC/partnership doesn't re-characterize the income (going through corporation - does, in many cases).
"You uncle is liable to pay ""Capital-Gains"" tax. Essentially the sale price less of cost would be treated as gains. The gains are taxed at 10% without indexation and 20% with Indexation.  The capital gains tax can be avoided if your uncle invests the gains into specified ""Infrastructure bonds"" or buys another property within a period of 3 years. The funds need to be kept in a separate ""Capital Gains"" account and not a regular savings account till you buy another property within 3 years." "While @JB's ""yes"" is correct, a few more points to consider: There is no tax penalty for withdrawing any time from a taxable investment, that is, one not using specific tax protections like 401k/IRA or ESA or HSA. But you do pay tax on any income or gain distributions you receive from a taxable investment in a fund (except interest on tax-exempt aka ""municipal"" bonds),  and any net capital gains you realize when selling (or technically redeeming for non-ETF funds). Just like you do for dividends and interest and gains on non-fund taxable investments. Many funds have a sales charge or ""load"" which means you will very likely lose money if you sell quickly typically within at least several months and usually a year or more, and even some no-load funds, to discourage rapid trading that makes their management more difficult (and costly), have a ""contingent sales charge"" if you sell after less than a stated period like 3 months or 6 months.  For funds that largely or entirely invest in equities or longer term bonds, the share value/price is practically certain to fluctuate up and down, and if you sell during a ""down"" period you will lose money; if ""liquid"" means you want to take out money anytime without waiting for the market to move, you might want funds focussing on short-term bonds, especially government bonds, and ""money market"" funds which hold only very short bonds (usually duration under 90 days), which have much more stable prices (but lower returns over the longer term)." "I was told by the lawyers there was no tax consequence because the two   numbers were the same. That is correct. However, a tax professional tells me that since the start-up stock was   ""realized"" there invokes a taxable event now. That is correct. I'm now led to believe I owe cap-gains tax on the entire 4 year vest   this year That is incorrect. You owe capital gains tax on the sale of your startup stock. Which is accidentally the exact same amount you ""paid"" for the new unvested stocks. There's no taxable event with regards to the new stocks because the amount you paid for them was the amount you got for the old stocks. But you did sell the old stocks, and that is a taxable event." "You have a sequence of questions here, so a sequence of answers: If you stopped at the point where you had multiple wins with a net profit of $72, then you would pay regular income tax on that $72. It's a short term capital gain, which does not get special tax treatment, and the fact that you made it on multiple transactions does not matter. When you enter your next transaction that takes the hypothetical loss the question gets more complicated. In either case, you are paying a percentage on net gains.  If you took a two year view in the second case and you don't have anything to offset your loss in the second year, then I guess you could say that you paid more tax than you won in the total sequence of trades over the two years. Although you picked a sequence of trades where it does not appear to play, if you're going to pursue this type of strategy then you are likely at some point to run into a case where the ""wash sale"" rules apply, so you should be aware of that.  You can find information on this elsewhere on this site and also, for example, here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02  Basically these rules require you to defer recording a loss under some circumstances where you have rapid wins and losses on ""substantially identical"" securities. EDIT A slight correction, you can take part of your losses in the second year even if you have no off-setting gain.  From the IRS: If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the amount of the excess loss that you can claim on line 13 of Form 1040 to lower your income is the lesser of $3,000, ($1,500 if you are married filing separately)" My understanding is that when you die, the stocks are sold and then   the money is given to the beneficiary or the stock is repurchased in   the beneficiaries name. This is wrong, and the conclusion you draw from michael's otherwise correct answer follows your false assumption.  You seem to understand the Estate Tax federal threshold. Jersey would have its own, and I have no idea how it works there. If the decedent happened to trade in the tax year prior to passing, normal tax rules apply.  Now, if the executor chooses to sell off and liquidate the estate to cash, there's no further taxable gain, a $5M portfolio can have millions in long term gain, but the step up basis pretty much negates all of it.  If that's the case, the beneficiaries aren't likely to repurchase those shares, in fact, they might not even know what the list of stocks was, unless they sifted through the asset list. But, that sale was unnecessary, assets can be divvied up and distributed in-kind, each beneficiary getting their fraction of the number of shares of each stock. And then your share of the $5M has a stepped up basis, meaning if you sell that day, your gains are near zero. You might owe a few dollars for whatever the share move in the time passing between the step up date and date you sell.  I hope that clarifies your misunderstanding.  By the way, the IRS is just an intermediary. It's congress that writes the laws, including the tangled web of tax code. The IRS is the moral equivalent of a great customer service team working for a company we don't care for. Generally bank transfers are not in themselves liable for tax. However making profit generally is taxed either as income, capital gains or some combination of the two. It seems that in the UK cryptocurrencies are being treated like other currencies for tax purposes and that trading profits/losses may count as either income or capital gains depending on the circumstances. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/revenue-and-customs-brief-9-2014-bitcoin-and-other-cryptocurrencies/revenue-and-customs-brief-9-2014-bitcoin-and-other-cryptocurrencies However I do not know how to unravel whether particular trading activity would count as income or capital gains. I would suggest gathering as much information as possible and then discussing this with an accountant. In response to your points #1 and #2: In general, yes it is true that capital gains are only subject to half one's marginal rate of income tax.  That doesn't mean 50% of the gain is due as tax... rather, it means that if one's marginal tax rate (tax bracket) on the next $10K would have been, say, 32%, then one is taxed on the gain at 16%.  (The percentages are examples, not factual.) However, because these are employee stock options, the tax treatment is different than for a capital gain!    Details: On the Federal tax return are lines for reporting Security option benefits (Line 101) and Security options deductions (Line 249).  The distinction between a regular capital gain and an employee stock option benefits is important.  In many cases the net effect may be the same as a capital gain, but the income is characterized differently and there are cases where it matters.  Somebody who is about to or has realized employee stock option benefits should seek professional tax advice. In response to your next two points: No, one cannot transfer a capital gain or other investment income into a TFSA immediately after-the-fact in order to receive the tax-free benefits of the TFSA on that income.  Only income and gains earned within a TFSA are free from tax – i.e. The options would have to have been in the TFSA before being exercised.  Once a gain or other investment income has been realized in a non-sheltered account, it is considered taxable.  The horse has already left the barn, so to speak! However, despite the above, there is another strategy available:  One can create an offsetting deduction by contributing some of the realized gain into an RRSP.  The RRSP contribution, assuming room is available, would yield a tax deduction to offset some tax due on the gain.  However, the RRSP only defers income tax; upon withdrawal of funds, ordinary income tax is due (hopefully, at a lower marginal rate in retirement.) There is no minimum amount of time that money or assets have to be inside a TFSA to benefit from the tax-free nature of the account.  However, there are limits on how much money you can move into a TFSA in any given year, and many folks weren't aware of the rules. p.s. Let me add once more that this is a case where I suggest seeking professional tax advice. Inflows to the US equity market can come from a variety of sources; for instance: You were paid a year-end bonus and decided to invest it in US equities instead of foreign equities, bonds, savings or debt reduction. You sold foreign equities, bonds, or other non-US equities and decided to invest in US equities. You decided a better use of cash in a savings account, CD or money market fund, was to invest in US equities. If for every buyer, there's a seller, doesn't that also mean that   there were $25B in outflows in the same time period? Not necessarily. Generally, the mentions we see of inflows and outflows are net; that is, the gross investment in US equities, minus gross sales of US equities equals net inflows or outflows. The mere fact that I sold my position in, say, Caterpillar, doesn't mean that I had to re-invest in US equities. I may have bought a bond or a CD or a house. Because of fluctuations in existing stocks market value, bankruptcies and new issues, US equities never are and never will be a zero-sum game. @BlackJack does a good answer of addressing the gains and when you are taxed on them and at what kind of rate. Money held in a brokerage account will usually be in a money-market fund, so you would own taxes on the interest it earned.   There is one important consideration that must be understood for capitol Losses.  This is called the Wash Sale Rule.  This rule comes into affect if you sell a stock at a LOSS, and buy shares of the same stock within 30 days (before or after) the sale.  A common tactic used to minimize taxes paid is to 'capture losses' when they occur, since these can be used to offset gains and lower your taxes.  This is normally done by selling a stock in which you have a LOSS, and then either buying another similar stock, or waiting and buying back the stock you sold.   However, if you are intending to buy back the same stock, you must not 'trigger' the Wash Sale Rule or you are forbidden to take the loss. Examples.  Lets presume you own 1000 shares of a stock and it's trading 25% below where you bought it, and you want to capture the loss to use on your taxes. This can be a very important consideration if trading index ETF's  if you have a loss in something like a S&P500 ETF, you would likely incur a wash sale if you sold it and bought a different S&P500 ETF from another company since they are effectively the same thing.  OTOH, if you sold an S&P500 ETF and bought something like a 'viper''total stock market' ETF it should be different enough to not trigger the wash sale rule.  If you are trying to minimize the taxes you pay on stocks, there are basically two rules to follow.  1) When a gain is involved, hold things at least a year before selling, if at all possible.  2) Capture losses when they occur and use to offset gains, but be sure not to trigger the wash sale rule when doing so. Where I am you pay annual taxes on a house, pay state and county transfer taxes when you buy/sell, and then have to pay capital gains the year you sell if it appreciated and you don't meet one of the exemptions. So I think your whole premise may be flawed. "Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor a tax-expert This page on the HMRC site lists several pages that appear to be relevant, starting with CG78401 - Foreign currency: delayed remittances and on to CG78408 - Foreign currency: example which seems pertinent to your case [paraphrased]: A property bought in 1983 is sold for a [taxable] gain in one tax-year (1986/87) but the proceeds cannot be released/remitted to the UK until later (1991/92), by which time currency fluctuations have created a second [taxable] gain. The size of the first gain (selling the property) is determined by the exchange rate in effect at the time of the sale but because of local restrictions, this can be deferred.  The size of the second gain (currency movement) is determined by the change in exchange-rate between the time of the sale and the time of conversion. In your case, the first ""gain"" was actually a loss, so I believe you should be able to use this to offset any tax due second gain.  This page states that losses can be claimed up to four years after the end of the tax-year in which they were incurred, so you are probably still OK. (The example makes application under TCGA92/S279 to defer the gain made on the original sale [because of the inability to transfer funds], but as I understand it, this is primarily to avoid a tax liability in that year.  Since you made a loss on the sale, there wouldn't have been a tax liability, so there would be no need to defer it)." The tax cost at election should be zero.  The appreciation is all capital gain beyond your basis, which will be the value at election. IRC §83 applies to property received as compensation for services, where the property is still subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture.  It will catch unvested equity given to employees. §83(a) stops taxation until the substantial risk of forfeiture abates (i.e. no tax until stock vests) since the item is revocable and not yet truly income.  §83(b) allows the taxpayer to make a quick election (up to 30 days after transfer - firm deadline!) to waive the substantial risk of forfeiture (e.g. treat shares as vested today). The normal operation of §83 takes over after election and the taxable income is generally the value of the vested property minus the price paid for it.  If you paid fair market value today, then the difference is zero and your income from the shares is zero. The shares are now yours for tax purposes, though not for legal purposes.  That means they are most likely a capital asset in your hands, like other stocks you own or trade.  The shares will not be treated as compensation income on vesting, and vesting is not a tax matter for elected shares. If you sell them, you get capital gain (with tax dependent on your holding period) over a basis equal to FMV at the election.  The appreciation past election-FMV will be capital gain, rather than ordinary income.  This is why the §83(b) election is so valuable.  It does not matter at this point whether you bought the restricted shares at FMV or at discount (or received them free) - that only affects the taxes upon §83(b) election. In Canada, it is similarly taxed as CQM states. Mining is considered business income and you need to file a T1 form. Capital appreciation is no different than treating gains from stock. "If you sell an asset for more than you paid for it, the excess amount realized is called a capital gain and is generally considered a form of income for tax purposes. Generally, one pays income tax on realized capital gains, unless the sale is exempt—such as the sale of one's principal residence. Capital gains tax can also be avoided or deferred by holding assets in a tax-advantaged investment account like a TFSA or RRSP. When taxable, the effective income tax rate on capital gains income is half the normal rate due to the capital gains inclusion rate. Capital gains income is generally not considered to be employment, ""earned"", or ""working"" income. However, individuals who, say, trade stocks frequently and earn a substantial portion of their income that way may have their gains considered employment income and subject to regular income tax instead of the better rate. I suggest you contact Service Canada and ask them about the impact of a one-time sale of personal property that would result in a realized capital gain. While you would owe income tax on the capital gain, it might not have any impact on your disability benefits, because it would not be earned or employment income. You should also check with your private insurer; they may also consider the sale a capital gain and not employment income, however, only they would be able to tell you for sure whether it would have any possible effect on your benefits." You are still selling one investment and buying another - the fact that they are managed by the same company should be irrelevant.  So yes, it would get the same tax treatment as if they were managed by different companies.