Unless your state has really weird tax laws, contributing to an IRA reduces the amount of income that you get taxed on.

So if you make $100K and you contribute $10K to a traditional IRA, then for income tax purposes, you made $90K. (You still have to pay Social Security + Medicare on all $100K.)

This should be the same way for federal and state, though it's possible you live in a state with weird rules and would need to check the rules specifically for your state to make 100% sure that's the case. (I would be stunned if it isn't, though.)

You're not signing his name. As you said, he setup auto-pay. You're simply not touching something he did.

And what the bank (or, in this case, Kia's financial services) cares about more than anything is getting their money. If they call the loan, it's because they don't feel like they will get their money if you keep the car. But if they are getting their money, they won't care.

Look at your loan agreement. That should say whether the loan is due immediately on the death of the borrower or what the terms are.

(Personally, I'm not sure how legal it is, but if I had an interest rate that I like, I would "forget" to notify anyone and would just keep making payments.)

I don't know anything about Canada (other than that it's cold and you have maple syrup), but are these brackets right? https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-ca/learn/tax-brackets-canada

So according to this, your taxes would be $7529.55 + $4059.615 = $11589.16

Do you have a standard deduction like we have in the US (where a certain amount of your income is excluded from taxation)?

If this tax table is right and you had $70K in income with $13K withheld, then something is not right somewhere along the line.

In addition to giving more details, you should say "Canada" in the subject line.

People tend to assume US (particularly when you just use a $) and so any advice you get is going to be US-centric.

Impossible to say without knowing your total paycheck.

Do you make $300K per year? Yeah, you still owe them money.

Do you make $30K per year? You probably have a math error somewhere.

If you have one job, then it is very easy to set up your withholding to be exactly the right amount so that you won't owe anything and won't have given the government an interest-free loan.

The ship has probably sailed at this point, but does it say you have to pay back the bonus if they fire you? If not, then potentially you could have just refused to work the excess hours. (They could fire you ... but you wouldn't be leaving.)

And you said that the contract says "$20k minus applicable taxes". That sounds exactly like you need to pay back only what you received. What is their explanation for why they are saying otherwise? Show HR the language of the contract and say "no".

By the way, READ THE CONTRACT from when you were hired and they paid your bonus.

Exactly what does it say about repayment if you don't stay a certain period of time? Is it supposed to be prorated?

Is there anything that your employer did where they are in breach of the contract?

You say the hours are insane. Is there anything they are doing that is potentially illegal?

(You could potentially go to a lawyer if they are doing something illegal.)

Okay, that makes sense then.

You basically have to take care of it when you file your taxes.

If someone receives a bonus when they are hired, it's pretty much a certainty that there is a stipulation that you have to pay it back if you don't stay for six months or a year or whatever.

That's not OP's question.

OP is saying that they only received part of the bonus, but the company wants them to pay it back as though they had received the whole thing.

I would start by informing HR that you didn't actually receive the $20K. Show them the deposit record from your bank.

I can't fathom somewhere with an actual HR department (as opposed to just a cheap owner trying to make a buck off of someone) expecting somebody to pay back a bonus they did not receive.

Edit: I didn't realize that you meant the extra was for taxes - I thought you meant they had literally only paid you part of the bonus (as though it was paid in installments or something). You can potentially have them withhold no taxes on your final paycheck, but that obviously isn't going to make up for $7000.

You're really just going to have to deal with it until you get it back on your taxes. You can potentially have little/nothing withheld from taxes on your new job to try to make up the difference.

Okay, I think I understand now what you are saying.

She had business losses on her farm business. So say she had $20K in revenue, but $25K in business losses that you could write off. You're wondering if writing off her losses is going to hurt you on the mortgage application and you're thinking it would be better to either (a) file your taxes separately (so she can separately deduct her losses), (b) not write off the losses at all and pay taxes as though you had no losses, or (c) somehow have the bank not consider her income/losses and only look at your income.

My first thought is to keep in mind that concealing your true income/losses from the bank in the mortgage process is fraud. If you show them her income, but camouflage her losses to make her business look more profitable than it is, that's bank fraud. (It's basically what New York is accusing Donald Trump of.) So I would certainly not do (b).

I don't think (c) is going to work because you're going to give them your 1040 whether you are applying together or not - they are going to see your combined income.

I don't think (a) would work because business loss only gets deducted against business income, so her losses shouldn't reduce your AGI. You're better off being able to pay the lower tax rates.

The two don't have anything to do with each other. File your taxes jointly, period.

Whether you can apply for a mortgage solo is going to have to do with the laws of your state and the policies of your lender - it won't have a thing in this world to do with whether your tax return was joint.

Unless your wife has bad credit, the fact that she has no income shouldn't hurt you on your loan application. There are plenty of households with stay-at-home spouses that have joint mortgages.

Having your wife on the mortgage is probably going to be a requirement if you want to have her on the deed. And you want to have her on both - otherwise if you die, things potentially get difficult, depending on your state. If she is on the deed and the mortgage, then she can just keep making payments (if she wants to and is able to) and the loan can't be called by the bank. It also doesn't have to go to probate. (And again, laws there will vary from state to state.)

They probably did let you go right before your anniversary date. Unfortunately that is how it works and that is why they put those dates in there.

My wife was let go the day before her two year anniversary date from a job (when two years was the magic number for things vesting).

When they look to downsize, I can basically guarantee you they are looking at the list of people who are about to vest and picking from that list.

If you re-buy the same things 30 seconds after selling, that is a "wash sale". Please look up the wash sale rules. The bottom line is that if you sell (at a loss) and re-buy the "substantially identical" positions within 30 days, you can't deduct your loss. Rather, the loss gets added to the cost basis of your new position (and you can deduct that loss when you eventually sell the new position).

Now, let's pretend that you're not buying "substantially identical" positions, but are instead buying something that gives you exposure to the same thing (e.g. you're selling one crypto index fund and buying another crypto index fund). You are going to be able to deduct $3000 on your taxes this year and have $12000 to offset potential gains next year. To me, that doesn't at all feel like it would be worth $800 in fees.

The $800 in fees are probably going to basically equal what you're saving in taxes by getting to deduct the $3000. So it's not like you're walking away with any extra cash today. I just can't see that being worthwhile.

(And again, if you sell stuff at a loss and buy that identical position back, then you can't deduct it anyway.)

You would really have to check with them to see what they will let you do. There are too many moving parts for anyone to guess.

I know for a fact that you can move securities from one rollover IRA to another. But even if the general answer for a 401k is yes, you're still going to have to check with your particular 401k provider. (Do they allow you to transfer securities? Are the particular funds that you have even something that can be transferred and not something proprietary? Does your employer block you from transferring securities until you leave the company?)

A 401k? Usually (though obviously not always) those are managed for you and you don't have the direct control over individual stocks.

If you had, say, a rollover IRA at ETrade and a rollover IRA at Fidelity and you wanted to move stocks from one to another without selling them, you can definitely so that. But a 401k would be more dependent on what your company let's you do.

With the various ones my wife and I have had with different jobs, we have never been able to buy individual stocks - we just pick out funds - and so there are no individual stocks to roll over.