Should my husband's business pay my business?
It depends on the finances involved, but particularly if you're not billing anything right now and may have no revenue this year, it's probably a good idea to bill his company. This is in part because some deductions or other tax treatments are only allowed if you have revenue and/or income.  The biggest example I can think of is the Solo 401k - you can only contribute up to your self employed income.  If you're planning to contribute to one (and you should, they're amazingly powerful tools for saving for retirement and for reducing your tax burden), you will have to have some revenue in order to have something to pay yourself with. I don't believe you have to charge him, though, if it makes more tax sense not to (for example, if his business is operating at a loss and cannot benefit from expensing it, but you'd then have to pay taxes on your own income from it). "Is it worth it for me to ""charge"" him? I can think of two reasons why you might want to charge your husband:" "I agree with some of the points of the other answers but why not avoid all the guesswork? I highly recommend you not charge him now. Wait until the end of the year when you have much more information about both of your companies and then you can run the numbers both ways and decide if it would benefit you (collectively). If either of your businesses runs on a cash basis and you decide to invoice, just make sure the check is deposited before Dec 31. Update: If you want to do this for 2016, at least your husband's business would have to be using an accrual basis (since it's too late to take the deduction on a cash basis). Simply run the numbers both ways and see if it helps you. If it doesn't help enough to warrant it for 2016 you could rerun the numbers near the end of 2017 to see if it helps then. Diclaimer: I think it's OK to do this type of manipulation for the scenario you described since you have done (or are doing) the work and you are charging a reasonable fee, but realize that you shouldn't manipulate the amount of the invoice, or fabricate invoices. For example, you shouldn't ever think about such things as: ""If I invoice $50K instead of $3K, will that help us?""" Just from my own experience (I am not an accountant): In addition to counting as 'business income' (1040 line 12 [1]) your $3000 (or whatever) will be subject to ~15% self-employment tax, on Schedule SE.  This carries to your 1040 line ~57, which is after all your 'adjustments to income', exemptions, and deductions - so, those don't reduce it.  Half of the 15% is deductible on line ~27, if you have enough taxable income for it to matter; but, in any case, you will owe at least 1/2 of the 15%, on top of your regular income tax. Your husband could deduct this payment as a business expense on Schedule C; but, if (AIUI) he will have a loss already, he'll get no benefit from this in the current year.   If you do count this as income to you, it will be FICA income; so, it will be credited to your Social Security account. Things outside my experience that might bear looking into:  I suspect the IRS has criteria to determine whether spousal payments are legit, or just gaming the tax system.  Even if your husband can't 'use' the loss this year, he may be able to apply it in the future, when/if he has net business income. [1] NB: Any tax form line numbers are as of the last I looked - they may be off by one or two.
"(Yes, I know this is a seven year old question.) Does this only apply to debts that were taken on during marriage  Yes or to all debts of both partners? No. The important thing to remember is that it's both debts and assets acquired during the marriage which are shared. This comes from the reality that men in the olden times were the ones in business, accumulating wealth, etc while the woman ""made the home"".  The working assumption was that the woman who made the home was an equal partner with the man, since he benefited from a good home, and she benefited from his income. The fact that pre-marriage debts and assets were not community property also protected the woman, because she was able to then take back her dowry and use that to support herself. (N.B. - I live in a CP state.)" Hi, are you a business lawyer and do you happen to know the answer? I tried asking someone at a Small Business Center but I think he started getting annoyed at all my questions and starting becoming curt so I stopped asking even though I still wasn't clear on all the answers yet. "You may want, or at least be thinking of, the annualized method described in Pub 505 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p505/ch02.html#en_US_2015_publink1000194669 (also downloadable in PDF) and referred to in Why are estimated taxes due ""early"" for the 2nd and 3rd quarters only? . This doesn't prorate your payments as such; instead you use your income and deductions etc for each of the 3,2,3,4-month ""quarters"" to compute a prorated tax for the partial year, and pay the excess over the amount already paid. If your income etc amounts are (nearly) the same each month, then this computation will result in payments that are 3,2,3,4/12ths of 90% of your whole-year tax, but not if your amounts vary over the year. If you do use this method (and benefit from it) you MUST file form 2210 schedule AI with your return next filing season to demonstrate that your quarterly computations, and payments, met the requirements. You need to keep good per-period (or per-month) records of all tax-relevant amounts, and don't even try to do this form by hand, it'll drive you nuts; use software or a professional preparer (who also uses software), but I'd expect someone in your situation probably needs to do one of those anyway. But partnership puts a wrinkle on this. As a partner, your taxable income and expense is not necessarily the cash you receive or pay; it is your allocated share of the partnership's income and expenses, whether or not they are distributed to you. A partnership to operate a business (like lawyers, as opposed to an investment partnership) probably distributes the allocated amounts, at least approximately, rather than holding them in the partnership; I expect this is your year-end draw (technically a draw can be any allowed amount, not necessarily the allocated amount). In other words, your husband does earn this money during the year, he just receives it at the end. If the year-end distribution (or allocation if different) is significant (say more than 5% of your total income) and the partnership is not tracking and reporting these amounts (promptly!) for the IRS quarters -- and I suspect that's what they were telling you ""affects other partners"" -- you won't have the data to correctly compute your ""quarterly"" taxes, and may thus subject yourself to penalty for not timely paying enough. If the amount is reasonably predictable you can probably get away with using a conservative (high-side) guess to compute your payments, and then divide the actual full-year amounts on your K-1 over 12 months for 2210-AI; this won't be exactly correct, but unless the partnership business is highly seasonal or volatile it will be close enough the IRS won't waste its time on you. PS- the ""quarters"" are much closer to 13,9,13,17 weeks. But it's months that matter." I agree.  Billing by the hour for a sole-proprietorship is the exception, not the norm.  You either usually sell a product for a fixed price or provide a service via contract for a total sum.  That and the term 'sole proprietorship' doesn't preclude you from having thousand of employees working for you. Yes.  Basically, I see it as a huge giveaway to corporate interests when we have to do things like step in and pay for food for their workers (e.g. SNAP), enabling a business to keep their own wages low.  It's basically a wealth transfer to shareholders.  A full-time worker should be able to cover their nutritional needs from their salary. You should check several things: How your business can deduct your child care expenses is beyond me. If your mother-in-law starts a business as a neighborhood babysitter, she might get some deductions for her related expenses though. "You're a partnership. You should ask the money to be paid to the partnership. You'll have to fill partnership income tax return (form 1065) and each of you will get a K-1 schedule with your own personal portion of the income. For example, you're Adam, Ben and Clara. You work together on a project and are being paid. You get a check for $300 issued to ""Adam, Ben and Clara, DBA ABC Partnership"". You don't have to have a DBA, it just makes it easier to show you as a single entity. You then deposit the check to an account you set up for your partnership, and from that account you transfer $100 to each of you. Year end, you file form 1065, showing $300 income, and attach K-1 for each of the partners showing $100 income. That $100 income will flow to your individual tax returns. The overhead here is setting up a partnership account, potentially making a DBA, and filing the extra tax return. That's the proper way to do it, especially if it is something you're going to do regularly. For a one-time thing, one of you can get paid, report it as income on his/her Schedule C, and issue 1099 to the rest of you for your parts, and deduct the amount as his/her expense. Here, the overhead is Schedule C for each of you (instead of Schedule E if handling it as a partnership), extra 1099 forms (instead of 1065 and K-1s), and a risk of one partner defrauding the others (depends on how much you trust each other). With proper documentation, each of these is equally legal, and tax-wise the costs are the same (i.e.: either way you pay the same taxes). With partnership the overhead is a bit more expensive (DBA+1065 extra cost), but in the long term it will make your life easier if you do this kind of thing regularly. You may want to consider setting up your partnership as a LLC/LLP (depending on what your State allows), but that would require State paperwork and potentially more fees." Assuming the funds are being transferred for his treatment, Yes it should be added to your income and taxed at the bracket you fall into. This is same as a person walking into your clinic and paying you cash/cheque/credit card to get treated. "I am going to keep things very simple and explain the common-sense reason why the accountant is right: Also, my sister in law owns a small restaurant, where they claim their accountant informed them of the same thing, where a portion of their business purchases had to be counted as taxable personal income. In this case, they said their actual income for the year (through their paychecks) was around 40-50K, but because of this detail, their taxable income came out to be around 180K, causing them to owe a huge amount of tax (30K ish). Consider them and a similarly situated couple that didn't make these purchases. Your sister in law is better off in that she has the benefit of these purchases (increasing the value of her business and her expected future income), but she's worse off because she got less pay. Presumably, she thought this was a fair trade, otherwise she wouldn't have made those purchases. So why should she pay any less in taxes? There's no reason making fair trades should reduce anyone's tax burden. Now, as the items she purchased lose value, that will be a business loss called ""depreciation"". That will be deductible. But the purchases themselves are not, and the income that generated the money to make those purchases is taxable. Generally speaking, business gains are taxable, regardless of what you do with the money (whether you pay yourself, invest it, leave it in the business, or whatever). Generally speaking, only business losses or expenses are deductible. A purchase is an even exchange of income for valuable property -- even exchanges are not deductions because the gain of the thing purchased already fairly compensates you for the cost. You don't specify the exact tax status of the business, but there are really only two types of possibilities. It can be separately taxed as a corporation or it can be treated essentially as if it didn't exist. In the former case, corporate income tax would be due on the revenue that was used to pay for the purchases. There would be no personal income tax due. But it's very unlikely this situation applies as it means all profits taken out of the business are taxed twice and so small businesses are rarely organized this way. In the latter case, which is almost certainly the one that applies, business income is treated as self-employment income. In this case, the income that paid for the purchases is taxable, self-employment income. Since a purchase is not a deductible expense, there is no deduction to offset this income. So, again, the key points are: How much she paid herself doesn't matter. Business income is taxable regardless of what you do with it. When a business pays an expense, it has a loss that is deductible against profits. But when a business makes a purchase, it has neither a gain nor a loss. If a restaurant buys a new stove, it trades some money for a stove, presumably a fair trade. It has had no profit and no loss, so this transaction has no immediate effect on the taxes. (There are some exceptions, but presumably the accountant determined that those don't apply.) When the property of a business loses value, that is usually a deductible loss. So over time, a newly-purchased stove will lose value. That is a loss that is deductible. The important thing to understand is that as far as the IRS is concerned, whether you pay yourself the money or not doesn't matter, business income is taxable and only business losses or expenses are deductible. Investments or purchases of capital assets are neither losses nor expenses. There are ways you can opt to have the business taxed separately so only what you pay yourself shows up on your personal taxes. But unless the business is losing money or needs to hold large profits against future expenses, this is generally a worse deal because money you take out of the business is taxed twice -- once as business income and again as personal income. Update: Does the business eventually, over the course of the depreciation schedule, end up getting all of the original $2,000 tax burden back? Possibly. Ultimately, the entire cost of the item is deductible. That won't necessarily translate into getting the taxes back. But that's really not the right way to think about it. The tax burden was on the income earned. Upon immediate replacement, hypothetically with the exact same model, same cost, same 'value', isn't it correct that the ""value"" of the business only went up by the amount the original item had depreciated? Yes. If you dispose of or sell a capital asset, you will have a gain or loss based on the difference between your remaining basis in the asset and whatever you got for the asset. Wouldn't the tax burden then only be $400? Approximately, yes. The disposal of the original asset would cause a loss of the difference between your remaining basis in the asset and what you got for it (which might be zero). The new asset would then begin depreciating. You are making things a bit more difficult to understand though by focusing on the amount of taxes due rather than the amount of taxable gain or loss you have. They don't always correlate directly (because tax rates can vary)." You can ask the client to pay you through the LLC. In that case you should invoice them from the LLC and have them pay the invoice. If they pay you personally, you can always make a capital contribution to the LLC and use that money to buy equipment. The tax implications for a single person LLC providing professional services are the same for you either way: income is income whether it's from your LLC or an employer. It's different for the employer if they are giving you a W2 vs a 1099. So it doesn't matter much for you. If the LLC is buying equipment, make sure you get enough revenue through the LLC to at least offset those expenses. No, even businesses pay taxes quarterly.  So if you formed Nathan, LLC, or otherwise became self employed, you'd still have to file quarterly estimates and make tax payments.  This would cause taxes to be a much more high touch part of your life. However, you should ensure that you're claiming the proper exemptions etc to avoid excessive withholding. I'm not certain I understand what you're trying to do, but it sounds like you're trying to create a business expense for paying off your personal debt. If so - you cannot do that. It will constitute a tax fraud, and if you have additional partners in the LLC other than you and your spouse - it may also become an embezzlement issue. Re your edits: Or for example, can you create a tuition assistance program within   your company and pay yourself out of that for the purposes of student   loan money. Explicitly forbidden. Tuition assistance program cannot pay more than 5% of its benefits to owners. See IRS pub 15-B. You would think that if there was a way to just incorporate and make your debts pre-tax - everyone would be doing it, wouldn't you? "I started a business a few years ago.  At one point it wasn't going so well and my father ""loaned"" me an amount not too dissimilar to what you've done. From a personal perspective, the moment I took that loan there was a strain the relationship.  Especially when I was sometimes late on the interest payments...  Unfortunately thoughts like ""he doesn't need this right now, but if I don't pay the car loan then that is taken away"" came up a few times and paying the interest fell to the bottom of the monthly bill payment stack. At some point my wife and I finally took a hard look at my finances and goals.  We got rid of things that simply weren't necessary (car payment, cable tv, etc) and focused on the things we needed to.  Doing the same with the business helped out as well, as it helped focus me to to turn things around.  Things are now going great. That said, two of my siblings ran into their own financial trouble that our parents helped them on.  When this happened my father called us together and basically forgave everyone's debt by an equal amount which covered everything plus wrote a check to the one that was doing fine.  This ""cleared the air"" with regards to future inheritance, questions about how much one sibling was being helped vs another, etc.  Honestly, it made family gatherings more enjoyable as all that underlying tension was now gone. I've since helped one of my children.  Although I went about it an entirely different way.   Rather than loan them money, I gave it to them.  We also had a few discussions on how I think they ought to manage their finances and a set of goals to work towards which we co-developed.  Bearing in mind that they are an individual and sometimes you can lead a horse...  Given the current state of things I consider it money well ""spent""." Yes, absolutely she can. I come across small businesses from sole props to corps and llc who have their spouses employed. One thing to note is that the business won't need Workers Comp insurance if you're the only employee, if you hire anyone else you will need it. Let's look at the two options.  It sounds like, at this time, the company has enough cash to pay you a salary or pay your loan off, but not both at the same time. Ideally, in the future, there will be enough cash flow to be able to do both at the same time.  If you start your salary now, when the cash flow increases to the point where the company can pay off your loan, you will continue to receive your salary while the loan is being repaid. So it is probably most advantageous to you to start the salary now and wait with the loan payments. (If you think that the company is not going to make it and there is a danger of not ever getting the loan repaid, this could change; however, you are probably optimistic about the company, or you wouldn't have made the loan and agreed to work for free in the first place.) With the other option, the company gets out of debt quicker and cheaper. I can totally understand your brother wanting to eliminate this debt ASAP.  It looks like you and your brother had different expectations about what was going to happen. That's why it is so critical to put these kinds of agreements in writing. If you had had a payment schedule in your written loan agreement, this wouldn't be an issue. Of course, the issue of how long you would continue to work for free would still be there, but this could also have been decided ahead of time. As is, you have two different things going on that were left up in the air with no formal agreement.  As to what is fair, that is something only you and he can work out. Perhaps you can propose a payment schedule for your loan that the company can afford now while paying your salary; that way, you will start getting paid for working, and the company will start moving toward eliminating the debt.  I hope that you will be able to agree to a solution without ruining the relationship you have with your brother. Besides the fact that family relationships are important, a rift between the two of you would certainly be disastrous for the company and, as a result, your and his finances.