For SSI, is “authorized user” status on a bank account the same as “ownership”?
"Having dealt with with Social Security, state agencies, and banks more than I'd care to, I would urge you to do the following: 1) Get a 100% clear answer on whether or not you are listed as ""joint"" or ""authorized user/signer"" for an account. This will probably require a call to the bank, but for less than an hour of you and your friend's time you will save yourself a whole lot of hassle. The difference is like this: if you worked at a business that added you as an authorized user for a credit or debit card, this would allow you to use the card to buy things. But that doesn't make the money in the bank yours! On the other hand if you are listed as ""joint"", this regards ownership, and it could become tricky to establish whether its your money or not to any governmental satisfaction. 2) You are completely correct in being honest with the agency, but that's not enough - if you don't know what the facts are, you can't really be honest with them. If the form is unclear it's ok to ask, ""on having a bank account, does being listed as an authorized user on someone else's account count if it isn't my money or bank account?"" But if you are listed as holding the account jointly, that changes the question to: ""I am listed as joint on someone else's checking account, but it isn't my money - how is that considered?"" To Social Security it might mean generating an extra form, or it might mean you need to have the status on the account changed, or they might not care. But if you don't get the facts first, they won't give you the right answers or help you need. And from personal experience, it's a heck of a lot easier to get a straight and clear answer from a bank than it is from a federal government agency. Have the facts with you when you contact them and you'll be ok - but trust me, you don't want them guessing!"
The ownership of the house depends on what the original deed transferring title at the time of purchase says and how this ownership is listed in government records where the title transfer deed is registered. Hopefully the  two records are consistent.  In legal systems that descended from British common law (including the US), the two most common forms of ownership are tenancy in common meaning that, unless otherwise specified in the title deed, each of the owners has an equal share in the entire property, and can sell or bequeath his/her share without requiring the approval  of the others, and joint tenancy with right of survivorship meaning  that all owners have equal share, and if one owner  dies, the survivors form a new JTWROS. Spouses generally own property,  especially the home, in a special kind of JTWROS called tenancy by the entirety. On the other hand, the rule is that unless explicitly specified otherwise, tenancy in common with equal shares is how the owners hold the property. Other countries may have different default assumptions, and/or have multiple other forms of ownership (see e.g. here for the intricate rules applicable in India). Mortgages are a different issue. Most mortgages state that the mortgagees are jointly and severally liable for the mortgage  payments meaning that the mortgage holder does not care who makes the payment but only that the mortgage payment is made in full. If one owner refuses to pay his share, the others cannot send in their shares of the mortgage payment due and tell the bank to sue the recalcitrant co-owner for his share of the payment: everybody is liable (and can be sued) for the unpaid amount, and if the bank forecloses, everybody's share in the property is seized, not just the share owned by the recalcitrant person.  It is, of course, possible to for different co-owners to have separate mortgages for their individual shares, but the legalities (including questions such as whose lien is primary and whose secondary) are complicated. With regard to who paid what over the years of ownership, it does not matter as far as the ownership is concerned. If it is a tenancy in common with equal shares, the fact that the various owners paid the bills (mortgage payments, property taxes, repairs and maintenance) in unequal amounts does not  change the ownership of the property unless a new deed is recorded with the new percentages.  Now, the co-owners may decide among themselves as a matter of fairness that any money realized from a sale of the property should be divided up in accordance with the proportion that each contributed during the ownership, but that is a different issue. If I were a buyer of property titled as tenancy in common, I (or the bank who is lending me money to make the purchase) would issue separate checks to each co-seller in proportion to the percentages listed on the deed of ownership, and let them worry about whether they should transfer money among themselves to make it equitable. (Careful here! Gift taxes might  well be due if large sums of money change hands). Any institution that issues checks and is connected to the ACH system can be the passive side. Any institution that clears checks and is connected to the ACH system can be the originating side. Not any institution that can be - in fact is. Your credit union doesn't provide this service because they don't want to. It costs them money to implement and support it, but they don't see the required benefit to justify it. They can. My credit union does that. "There's no difference between ""individual"" and ""business"" in this context. What is a personal transaction that involves credit card? You have a garage sale? Its business. You sell something on craigslist - business. Want to let people pay for your daughter's girlscout cookies - business. There's no difference between using Paypal (which has its own credit card reader, by the way) and Square in this context. No-one will ask for any business licenses or anything, just your tax id (be it SSN or EIN). Its exactly the same as selling on eBay and accepting credit cards through your Paypal account, conceptually (charge-back rules are different, because Square is a proper merchant account, but that's it)." I have a loan that was picked up by BofA, too.  They required escrow, but there was a problem with one of their checks to my insurance company where it evidently got lost in the mail.  My insurance company contacted me, and I called BofA, who said it had been paid and may just be taking the insurance company a while to credit all the individual accounts (they send a check for a lot of customers at a time).  Well, since the check wasn't received, my insurance company contacted me again, and I finally straightened it out with everyone.  After that, I complained that it would have been much easier for me if I paid it myself instead of being a middle man, so they canceled my escrow, refunded the money to me, and now I pay the taxes and insurance myself.  I prefer it that way, as it simplifies things.  I've been a little surprised that BofA has been really nice whenever I contact them, and always seems willing to make me happy.  Maybe it's just because I pay on time and have paid a lot of extra on the principal so that there's no danger that I'll default. Is anything possible, and if so, how? Because of the circumstances, there is nothing you can do. You do not have the ISIN, nor are you a part-owner of the account.  The information you would need is:  As always, good luck. "In your words, you want to ""easily determine whether an item was purchased as part of our individual accounts, or our combined family account."" It's not clear exactly to me what kind of reporting you're trying to get. (I find a useful approach here to be to start with the output you're trying to get from a system, and then see how that maps to the input you want to give the system.) Here's some possibilities:" "I would call the bank and ask how the person is on the account.   If they are an owner, or are an authorized user, or what type of owner they are, etc.    If the bank makes the distinction between ""user"" and ""owner"" then most likely, your funds are not able to be seized.  If they are a joint owner, then, typically, 100% of the money is yours and 100% of the money is theirs and either of you could withdraw all the money, close the account, or have the money seized as part of a legal action." No financial interest means that you have signing authority over the account, but you don't own the money in it and aren't allowed to withdraw from it at will. One example would be a business account owned by a company where you're employed as a purchasing manager, and you need to sign checks drawn on that account to pay invoices. FBAR doesn't care about income -- it just wants to know about every account that you having signing authority over. You can open an account in US without having SSN. You need to be physically present to open the account. "Social security number should only be needed for things that involve tax withholding or tax payment. Your bank or investment broker, and your employer, need it so they can report your earnings. You need it when filing tax forms. Other than those, nobody should really be asking you for it.  The gym had absolutely no good reason to ask and won't have done anything with the number. I think we can ignore that one. The store cards are a bigger problem. Depending on exactly what was done with the data, you may have been messing up the credit record of whoever legitimately had that number... and if so you might be liable on fraud charges if they or the store figure out what happened and come after you. But that's unrelated to the fact that you have a legitimate SSN now. Basically, you really don't want to open this can of worms. And I hope you're posting from a disposable user ID and not using your real name... (As I noted in a comment, the other choice would be to contact the authorities (I'm not actually sure which bureau/department would be best), say ""I was young, foolish, and confused by America's process... do I need to do anything to correct this?"", and see what happens... but it might be wise to get a lawyer's advice on whether that's a good idea, a bad idea, or simply unnecessary.)" "so I believe it should be under ""No Financial Interest Account Information."" section ?  Why? It's your account in your name. From legal perspective it is your personal account and you have financial interest in it." Per Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 8-203: (d)      (1)      (i)      The landlord shall maintain all security   deposits in federally insured financial institutions, as defined in §   1-101 of the Financial Institutions Article, which do business in the   State. (ii)      Security deposit accounts shall be maintained in branches of the financial institutions which are located   within the State and the accounts shall be devoted exclusively to   security deposits and bear interest. (iii)      A security deposit shall be deposited in an account within 30 days after the landlord receives it. (iv)      The aggregate amount of the accounts shall be sufficient in amount to equal all security deposits for which the   landlord is liable. (2)      (i)      In lieu of the accounts described in paragraph (1) of this subsection, the landlord may hold the security   deposits in insured certificates of deposit at branches of federally   insured financial institutions, as defined in § 1-101 of the Financial   Institutions Article, located in the State or in securities issued by   the federal government or the State of Maryland. (ii)      In the aggregate certificates of deposit or securities shall be sufficient in amount to equal all security   deposits for which the landlord is liable. As such, one or more accounts at your preference; it's up to the bank how to treat the account, so it may be a personal account or it may be a 'commercial' account depending on how they treat it (but it must be separate from your personal funds).  A CD is perhaps the easiest way to go, as it's not a separate account exactly but it's easily separable from your own funds (and has better interest).  You should also note (further down on that page) that you must pay 3% interest, once per six months; so try to get an account that pays as close as possible to that.  You likely won't get 3% right now even in a CD, so consider this as an expense (and you'll probably find many people won't take security deposits in many situations as a result). A share of stock is an asset not much different than any other asset.  If the share is being held in a joint account, it's being jointly owned.  If the share is being held by a company with multiple owners then the share is owned by the various owners.  If you're married and in a community property state, then it's technically owned by both parties. "Furthermore, the ""trust fund"" the article talks about doesn't really exist - they SSAdmin just owns treasury bills, which as we all know are obligations of the U.S. government.  So - in order to exhaust the ""trust fund"" you have to expect the U.S. treasury to repay the SSAdmin in full - which we can debate about whether that is a fair assumption or not." Securities or quite a few negotiable instruments can change title of ownership without any issue. Many at times the owner ship in implicit if you are holding a certain instrument. So for example in Stock its a fractional ownership in a company, this ownership transfers to the buyer from the seller without requiring any permission from the company.   In case of say Loans, One cannot transfer the loan to some one else without the Banks permission.