Receiving partial payment of overseas loan/company purchase?
"Is it equity, or debt? Understanding the exact nature of one's investment (equity vs. debt) is critical. When one invests money in a company (presumably incorporated or limited) by buying some or all of it — as opposed to lending money to the company — then one ends up owning equity (shares or stock) in the company. In such a situation, one is a shareholder — not a creditor. As a shareholder, one is not generally owed a money debt just by having acquired an ownership stake in the company. Shareholders with company equity generally don't get to treat money received from the company as repayment of a loan — unless they also made a loan to the company and the payment is designated by the company as a loan repayment. Rather, shareholders can receive cash from a company through one of the following sources: ""Loan repayment"" isn't one of those options; it's only an option if one made a loan in the first place. Anyway, each of those ways of receiving money based on one's shares in a company has distinct tax implications, not just for the shareholder but for the company as well. You should consult with a tax professional about the most effective way for you to repatriate money from your investment. Considering the company is established overseas, you may want to find somebody with the appropriate expertise."
I'm having a difficult time understanding how Chevron is avoiding taxes through party related loans. From my understanding, Chevron is providing loans to its Australian subsidiary at interest rates higher than market benchmarks. Does this shift profits from Australia to the U.S. and how does it help Chevron avoid taxes even though the corporate tax rate is higher in the U.S. than in Australia? Wouln't they want to be taxed at the the lower tax rate in Australia than in the U.S.? The more description the better, thanks! Edit: I think I understand that Chevron is giving out large loans with high interest rates to its subsidiary in Australia and I think the Australian subsidiary is converting its revenues to pay back the loan thus looking like profit in the corporation's books in Delaware. How is the money to pay back interest being raised if not from revenue? And how is that revenue not being taxed? There are different options here.  Either way, ensure that you have a paper trail of all your payments. When in doubt, speak to a lawyer, there are many who offer free consultations. I wanted to know that what if the remaining 40% of 60% in a LTV (Loan to Value ratio ) for buying a home is not paid but the borrower only wants to get 60% of the total amount of home loan that is being provided by lending company. Generally, A lending company {say Bank] will not part with their funds unless you first pay your portion of the funds. This is essentially to safeguard their interest. Let's say they pay the 60% [either to you or to the seller]; The title is still with Seller as full payment is not made. Now if you default, the Bank has no recourse against the seller [who still owns the title] and you are not paying. Some Banks may allow a schedule where the 60/40 may be applied to every payment made. This would be case to case basis. The deal could be done with only paying 20% in the beginning to the buyer and then I have to pay EMI's of $7451.  The lending company is offering you 1.1 million assuming that you are paying 700K and the title will be yours. This would safeguard the Banks interest. Now if you default, the Bank can take possession of the house and recover the funds, a distress sale may be mean the house goes for less than 1.8 M; say for 1.4 million. The Bank would take back the 1.1 million plus interest and other closing costs. So if you can close the deal by paying only 20%, Bank would ask you to close this first and then lend you any money. This way if you are not able to pay the balance as per the deal agreement, you would be in loss and not the Bank. For the first case to occur, you need to have an agreement in place with the bank, this is called overdraft protection. It's done at a cost, but cheaper than the potential series of bounce fees. I've never heard of the second choice, partial payment. That's not to say that it's not possible. The payment not made is called a bounced check, you and the recipient will be harmed a fee. I believe it's a felony to write bad checks. Good to not write a check unless there's a positive balance taking that check into account. As Dilip suggests, ask your bank. You could think of points 1 and 3 combined to be similar to buying shares and selling calls on a part of those shares. $50k is the net of the shares and calls sale (ie without point 3, the investor would pay more for the same stake). Look up convertible debt, and why it's used. It's basically used so that both parties get 'the best of both world's' from equity and debt financing.   Who is he selling his share to in point 2 back to the business or to outside investors? This really comes down to tax structuring (which I am not an expert on), for public companies the acquiror almost always pays for the cash to prevent any taxable drawdown of overseas accounts, dividend taxes suck, etc.  For a private company, first the debt gets swept, then special dividend out - dividends received by the selling corporate entity benefit from a tax credit plus it reduces the selling price of the equity, reducing capital gains taxes. I work for an investment group in Central Asia in private equity/project investment. We use SPV and collateralized convertible loans to enter a project, we issue the loan at our own commercial bank. For each industry, the exact mechanisms vary. In most outcomes, we end up in control of some very important part of the business, and even if we have minority shares on paper, no decision is made w/o our approval.  For example, we enter cosntruction projects via aquisiton of land and pledging the land as equity for an SPV, then renting it to the project operator.   Basically, when you enter a business, be in control of the decisions there, or have significant leverage on the operations. Have your own operating professionals to run it. Profit. it sounds like you don't have experience in this, and neither does your *investor*; which is a recipe for disaster (pun intended).  Your first order of business is to check whether your investor is an *Accredited Investor* (google to see what it means), if s/he's not, **walk away**.  If s/he's an accredited investor, find a lawyer who can help you navigate this process, however these are the issues:  * lawyers are expensive, and lawyers who have experience in these type of transactions are even more expensive * you actually need 2 lawyers, one for you and one for the investor * if neither of you have experience, there will be a lot more billable hours from the lawyers.....  In principle this can go 3 ways:  1. The investors give you a loan, you pay them interests on a periodic basis, and then also principal.  Items to be negotiated: interest rates, repayment schedule, collateral, personal guarantees. Highly unlikely this is what the investors wants.  2. The Investors get equity. items to be negotiated: your compensation, % of ownership, how profits are divided, how profits are paid; who gets to decide what.  3. A combination of 1 and 2 above, a *Convertible Note*.  There's a lot more, too much for a Reddit post.  There's not an easy ELI5. "You promised to pay the loan if he didn't.  That was a commitment, and I recommend ""owning"" your choice and following it through to its conclusion, even if you never do that again.  TLDR: You made a mistake: own it, keep your word, and embrace the lesson.  Why?  Because you keep your promises.  (Nevermind that this is a rare time where your answer will be directly recorded, in your credit report.) This isn't moralism. I see this as a ""defining moment"" in a long game: 10 years down the road I'd like you to be wise, confident and unafraid in financial matters, with a healthy (if distant) relationship with our somewhat corrupt financial system.  I know austerity stinks, but having a strong financial life will bring you a lot more money in the long run. Many are leaping to the conclusions that this is an ""EX-friend"" who did this deliberately.  Don't assume this. For instance, it's quite possible your friend sold the (car?) at a dealer, who failed to pay off this note, or did and the lender botched the paperwork.  And when the collector called, he told them that, thinking the collector would fix it, which they don't do. The point is, you don't know: your friend may be an innocent party here.  Creditors generally don't report late payments to the credit bureaus until they're 30 days late.  But as a co-signer, you're in a bad spot: you're liable for the payments, but they don't send you a bill.  So when you hear about it, it's already nearly 30 days late.  You don't get any extra grace period as a co-signer. So you need to make a payment right away to keep that from going 30 late, or if it's already 30 late, to keep it from going any later.   If it is later determined that it was not necessary for you to make those payments, the lender should give them back to you.  A less reputable lender may resist, and you may have to threaten small claims court, which is a great expense to them. Cheaper to pay you.  They say France is the nation of love. They say America is the nation of commerce.  So it's not surprising that here, people are quick to burn a lasting friendship over a temporary financial issue.  Just saying, that isn't necessarily the right answer.  I don't know about you, but my friends all have warts.  Nobody's perfect.  Financial issues are just another kind of wart.  And financial life in America is hard, because we let commerce run amok.  And because our obsession with it makes it a ""loaded"" issue and thus hard to talk about.  Perhaps your friend is in trouble but the actual villain is a predatory lender.  Point is, the friendship may be more important than this temporary adversity.  The right answer may be to come together and figure out how to make it work.  Yes, it's also possible he's a human leech who hops from person to person, charming them into cosigning for him. But to assume that right out of the gate is a bit silly.  The first question I'd ask is ""where's the car?"" (If it's a car). Many lenders, especially those who loan to poor credit risks, put trackers in the car.  They can tell you where it is, or at least, where it was last seen when the tracker stopped working.  If that is a car dealer's lot, for instance, that would be very informative.   Simply reaching out to the lender may get things moving, if there's just a paperwork issue behind this.  Many people deal with life troubles by fleeing: they dread picking up the phone, they fearfully throw summons in the trash.  This is a terrifying and miserable way to deal with such a situation.  They learn nothing, and it's pure suffering.   I prefer and recommend the opposite: turn into it, deal with it head-on, get ahead of it.   Ask questions, google things, read, become an expert on the thing. Be the one calling the lender, not the other way round.  This way it becomes a technical learning experience that's interesting and fun for you, and the lender is dreading your calls instead of the other way 'round.  I've been sued.  It sucked.  But I took it on boldly, and and actually led the fight and strategy (albeit with counsel).  And turned it around so he wound up paying my legal bills.  HA!  With that precious experience, I know exactly what to do... I don't fear being sued, or if absolutely necessary, suing.   You might as well get the best financial education.  You're paying the tuition!" Yes, truckloads of cash. /s  It's exactly the same as your example, when people say to pay for a car in cash, they don't meany physical bills, but rather the idea that you aren't getting a loan.   In most acquisitions, the buyer will usually pay with their own stock, pay in cash, or a combination of both. "This sounds like a FATCA issue.  I will attempt to explain, but please confirm with your own research, as I am not a FATCA expert. If a foreign institution has made a policy decision not to accept US customers because of the Foreign Financial Institution (FFI) obligations under FATCA, then that will of course exclude you even if you are resident outside the US.  The US government asserts the principle of universal tax jurisdiction over its citizens.  The institution may have a publicly available FATCA policy statement or otherwise be covered in a new story, so you can confirm this is what has happened.  Failing that, I would follow up and ask for clarification. You may be able to find an institution that accepts US citizens as investors.  This requires some research, maybe some legwork. Renunciation of your citizenship is the most certain way to circumvent this issue, if you are prepared to take such a drastic step.  Such a step would require thought and planning.  Note that there would be an expatriation tax (""exit tax"") that deems a disposition of all your assets (mark to market for all your assets) under IRC § 877. A less direct but far less extreme measure would be to use an intermediary, either one that has access or a foreign entity (i.e. non-US entity) that can gain access.  A Non-Financial Foreign Entity (NFFE) is itself subject to withholding rules of FATCA, so it must withhold payments to you and any other US persons.  But the investing institutions will not become FFIs by paying an NFFE; the obligation rests on the FFI. PWC Australia has a nice little writeup that explains some of the key terms and concepts of FATCA. Of course, the simplest solution is probably to use US institutions, where possible.  Non-foreign entities do not have foreign obligations under FATCA." Another option, not yet discussed here, is to allow the loan to go into default and let the loaning agency repossess the property the loan was used for, after which they sell it and that sale should discharge some significant portion of the loan. Knowing where the friend and property is, you may be able to help them carry out the repossession by providing them information. Meanwhile, your credit will take a significant hit, but unless your name is on the deed/title of the property then you have little claim that the property is yours just because you're paying the loan. The contract you signed for the loan is not going to be easily bypassed with a lawsuit of any sort, so unless you can produce another contract between you and your friend it's unlikely that you can even sue them. In short, you have no claim to the property, but the loaning agency does - perhaps that's the only way to avoid paying most of the debt, but you do trade some of your credit for it. Hopefully you understand that what you loaned wasn't money, but your credit score and earning potential, and that you will be more careful who you choose to lend this to in the future. My understanding of this would be that this is for the portion of the subsidiary which they do not own. In other words they record 100% of the subsidiary on their books and then make this entry to account for the % which another company has a minority interest in. I wouldn't get too caught up with this. Doesn't sound like this is even stock reconciliation, more ensuring the cash you've received for dividends &amp; other corporate actions agrees to your expected entitlements and if not raising claims etc. You're lending the money to your business by paying for it directly.  The company accounts must reflect a credit (the amount you lend to it) and a debit (what it then puts that loan towards).   It's fairly normal for a small(ish) owner-driven company to reflect a large loan-account for the owners.  For example, if you have a room at home dedicated for the business it is impractical to pay rent directly via the company.  The rental agreement is probably in your name, you pay the rent, and you reconcile it with the company later. You could even charge your company (taxable) interest on this loan. When you draw down the loan from the company you reverse this, debit your loan account and credit the company (paying off the debt). As far as tracking that expenditure, simply handle those third-party invoices in the normal way and file them for reference.