To contact us Click HERE
Paul Krugman's column today—noting that Charles Murray's new much ballyhooed book on the social divide is merely the latest example of a venerable conservative tactic to attribute all problems in American society to vague, unspecified things that Liberals Did in the Sixties—reminds me of my favorite anecdote from my days at the late and not-too-lamented weekly newsmagazine U.S. News & World Report.
One of the regular columnists for U.S. News at my time there was a superannuated softball buddy of demi-billionaire owner Mortimer B. Zuckerman's named John Leo.
Leo had been a fairly prominent New York Times reporter eons previous but by the '90s devoted his declining years to cranking out column after column for Snooze, every one of which was almost identical; they always began by decrying the decay of American values (generally defined as those upheld by the Catholic Church, particularly its implaccable opposition to abortion) and ended by concluding that this was all a direct and ineluctable consequence of "liberal permissiveness" of the 1960s.
A friend of mine on the magazine staff had the dubious honor of editing these columns. This editor frequently went to gym at the hotel next door where he had a membership and had a nodding acquaintance with another gym member, a lawyer at one of the nearby (and as I recall fairly old-fashioned) law firms.
One day my colleague was wearing his U.S. News T-shirt at the gym, which prompted his nodding acquaintance to speak up.
"Do you work at U.S. News?" he asked.
My colleague admitted the truth of the accusation.
"Really—do you know this guy John Leo?" he continued.
My colleague replied, "As as a matter of fact, I edit his column."
"Really," said the lawyer, growing more interested. "Could you give him a message for me?"
My colleague graciously said he would.
"I GET IT!" said the lawyer, and turned away.
30 Kasım 2012 Cuma
I'm married to a US Citizen -- What Happens Next?
To contact us Click HERE
Marriage is a wonderful thing -- but how does it effect immigration law? Legal status? LPR (legal permanent resident or lawful permanent resident) and work status (EAD -- employment authorization documentation)?
It is important to remember that immigration is roughly divided into to sections -- innies and outties. Alright, perhaps the simplistic description is misplaced here, but the concept is the same. Are you inside the country, or outside the country? If you are outside the country, the process is I129F, I130, K3 (spouse). If you are inside the country, the process is I130, I485, and if illegal, I601 (waiver/hardship -- tricky here, as there are proposed rules changes with the 601/601A).
What are all these "I" forms, and what do they do?
First, "I" stands for "Immigration" and designates a type of government form related to USCIS (United States Customs and Immigration Service). You will occasionally also see EOIR forms (Executive Office of Immigration Review -- that's the immigration court), and DHS (Department of Homeland Security) or DS (Department of State) forms. However, for today's discussion, we're only focusing on "I" forms.
The I130 is arguably the most important form of the "spousal" immigration group. It notifies USCIS that a US citizen or LPR (green-card holder)has a family member (in this case, his/her spouse) that is eligible for entry into the US. By itself, the I130 does nothing. However, without the document, nothing else can be done to convert a non-immigrant status to an immigrant (i.e. wants to stay permanently) status.
An I129F is filed to request that a foreign national, currently outside of the United States, be granted a "K" visa. K visas permit finances (K1), family members (K2), and spouses (K3) entry into the United States for a set duration (in the case of a K3, the amount of time is 2 years, and includes permission to file an I765 once in the country to permit work). An actual "K" visa is not a form. It is a stamp/processing placed inside the foreign national's passport indicate the type of entry permitted. The form required is the I129F (F = Fiance, however, it is used for K2/K3 visas, also) filed by the US citizen/LPR. Once approved by USCIS, it is forwarded to the consulate in the area where the fiance/family member/spouse resides, and the fiance/family member/spouse can then contact the consulate to setup and interview and background check. Once they complete the interview and background check, the family member/fiance/spouse's passport is stamped, and they may enter the US under the immigrant visa classification "K".
Next blog will discuss the "in country" (innies!) processing of family members/fiances/spouses.
Have an immigration law question? Ask us! This is something we do everyday. From simple phone discussions to complex immigration court litigation. We're here to help -- and your first call is always free.
Sean R. Hanover, Esq
HanoverLawPC.com
Contact UsVisit the Hanover Law firm at www.hanoverlawpc.com
It is important to remember that immigration is roughly divided into to sections -- innies and outties. Alright, perhaps the simplistic description is misplaced here, but the concept is the same. Are you inside the country, or outside the country? If you are outside the country, the process is I129F, I130, K3 (spouse). If you are inside the country, the process is I130, I485, and if illegal, I601 (waiver/hardship -- tricky here, as there are proposed rules changes with the 601/601A).
What are all these "I" forms, and what do they do?
First, "I" stands for "Immigration" and designates a type of government form related to USCIS (United States Customs and Immigration Service). You will occasionally also see EOIR forms (Executive Office of Immigration Review -- that's the immigration court), and DHS (Department of Homeland Security) or DS (Department of State) forms. However, for today's discussion, we're only focusing on "I" forms.
The I130 is arguably the most important form of the "spousal" immigration group. It notifies USCIS that a US citizen or LPR (green-card holder)has a family member (in this case, his/her spouse) that is eligible for entry into the US. By itself, the I130 does nothing. However, without the document, nothing else can be done to convert a non-immigrant status to an immigrant (i.e. wants to stay permanently) status.
An I129F is filed to request that a foreign national, currently outside of the United States, be granted a "K" visa. K visas permit finances (K1), family members (K2), and spouses (K3) entry into the United States for a set duration (in the case of a K3, the amount of time is 2 years, and includes permission to file an I765 once in the country to permit work). An actual "K" visa is not a form. It is a stamp/processing placed inside the foreign national's passport indicate the type of entry permitted. The form required is the I129F (F = Fiance, however, it is used for K2/K3 visas, also) filed by the US citizen/LPR. Once approved by USCIS, it is forwarded to the consulate in the area where the fiance/family member/spouse resides, and the fiance/family member/spouse can then contact the consulate to setup and interview and background check. Once they complete the interview and background check, the family member/fiance/spouse's passport is stamped, and they may enter the US under the immigrant visa classification "K".
Next blog will discuss the "in country" (innies!) processing of family members/fiances/spouses.
Have an immigration law question? Ask us! This is something we do everyday. From simple phone discussions to complex immigration court litigation. We're here to help -- and your first call is always free.
Sean R. Hanover, Esq
HanoverLawPC.com
Contact UsVisit the Hanover Law firm at www.hanoverlawpc.com
LET'S DO SOMETHING RIGHT FOR A CHANGE
To contact us Click HERE
Therehas been a lot of talk lately about “tax expenditures” and the 47% of Americanswho either pay absolutely no federal income tax or actually make a profit byfiling a tax return (thanks to “refundable” tax credits).
Overthe years the idiots in Congress have created a mucking fess of the Tax Code bymaking it the method of delivery for various social welfare benefits and toencourage certain beneficial purchases, which has created the 47%. This is certainly not the best, nor the mostefficient, way to deliver or distribute these benefits – but it is easy. And, as we all know, the idiots in Congressare all for choosing the quickest and easiest way to do things rather thanactually having to sit down and think.
Whilethere are many “tax expenditures” that should be completely done away with,many of the social and societal benefit programs run through the Code areactually good and have merit. But theyshould be delivered and distributed separately out of the budget of theappropriate cabinet department – and not on the 1040.
AsI have posted here before, doing this is much “more better” for many reasons -
(1)It would be easier for the government to verify that the recipient of thesubsidy or hand-out actually qualified for the money, greatly reducing fraud.And tax preparers would no longer need to take on the added responsibility ofhaving to verify if a person qualified for government funds.
(2)The qualifying individual(s) would get the money at the “point of purchase”,when it is really needed, and not have to go “out of pocket” up front and waitto be reimbursed when they file their tax return.
(3)We would be able to calculate the true income tax burden of individuals. Many of the current 47% would still bereceiving government hand-outs, but it would not be tied into the income taxsystem so they would actually be paying federal income tax.
(4)We could measure the true cost of education, housing, health, welfare, etcprograms in the federal budget because the various subsidies would be properlyallocated to the appropriate departments and not be reported as a part of netincome collected via income tax.
(5)The Tax Code would be much less complicated, the cost to the public forpreparing a tax return would be reduced, and the IRS would have much less toprocess and to audit.
Item(2) is a very important one. A major problemwith using the Tax Code to distribute government benefits via tax deductionsand credits is that the benefits are provided “after-the-fact” and not at the “pointof purchase”.
Let’slook at the deductions and credits for tuition and fees. In order to claim these tax benefits thestudent, or more likely his/her parents, must spend the money for tuition andfees and then wait until they file their tax return to get the “studentfinancial aid” from the government.
Thesestudents, and parents, need the money when the tuition and fees are due. If they do not have it at the point ofpurchase they often turn to borrowing, placing themselves further in debt.
Thereis currently in place a process for providing student financial aid at thepoint of purchase. And this aid is basedon student and family income, using information from tax returns. Instead of giving those who qualify a taxdeduction or credit on their Form 1040 a year or more later, why not give thesame benefit, based on the same income formula, as part of the existing studentfinancial aid system. This way thestudent, or parents, gets the money upfront to pay for college expenses or, betteryet, the money is distributed directly to the college - and there is no needfor additional borrowing.
Inthe past there have been credits for purchasing energy-efficient products andimprovements, and some still exist. Butagain, the money is provided after-the-fact – as much as a year or more afterthe purchase. I would think moreindividuals would be encouraged to purchase these items if the money wasprovided upfront as a point of purchase discount. Again individuals who want to take advantageof the eventual tax credit may be forced to borrow money to make the qualifyingpurchase, creating more debt.
The“Cash for Clunkers” program of a few years back proves that this can be donerelatively efficiently.
And,as I have said over and over again, the Earned Income Tax Credit, refundableand otherwise, and refundable Child Tax Credit, which, if you call a spade ashovel, are really forms of welfare, would be better distributed via the Aid toFamilies with Dependent Children program – and with substantially less fraud.
Unfortunately,with BO re-elected and the members of Congress being the idiots they are, don’texpect any changes in the current system any time soon.
TTFN
Therehas been a lot of talk lately about “tax expenditures” and the 47% of Americanswho either pay absolutely no federal income tax or actually make a profit byfiling a tax return (thanks to “refundable” tax credits).
Overthe years the idiots in Congress have created a mucking fess of the Tax Code bymaking it the method of delivery for various social welfare benefits and toencourage certain beneficial purchases, which has created the 47%. This is certainly not the best, nor the mostefficient, way to deliver or distribute these benefits – but it is easy. And, as we all know, the idiots in Congressare all for choosing the quickest and easiest way to do things rather thanactually having to sit down and think.
Whilethere are many “tax expenditures” that should be completely done away with,many of the social and societal benefit programs run through the Code areactually good and have merit. But theyshould be delivered and distributed separately out of the budget of theappropriate cabinet department – and not on the 1040.
AsI have posted here before, doing this is much “more better” for many reasons -
(1)It would be easier for the government to verify that the recipient of thesubsidy or hand-out actually qualified for the money, greatly reducing fraud.And tax preparers would no longer need to take on the added responsibility ofhaving to verify if a person qualified for government funds.
(2)The qualifying individual(s) would get the money at the “point of purchase”,when it is really needed, and not have to go “out of pocket” up front and waitto be reimbursed when they file their tax return.
(3)We would be able to calculate the true income tax burden of individuals. Many of the current 47% would still bereceiving government hand-outs, but it would not be tied into the income taxsystem so they would actually be paying federal income tax.
(4)We could measure the true cost of education, housing, health, welfare, etcprograms in the federal budget because the various subsidies would be properlyallocated to the appropriate departments and not be reported as a part of netincome collected via income tax.
(5)The Tax Code would be much less complicated, the cost to the public forpreparing a tax return would be reduced, and the IRS would have much less toprocess and to audit.
Item(2) is a very important one. A major problemwith using the Tax Code to distribute government benefits via tax deductionsand credits is that the benefits are provided “after-the-fact” and not at the “pointof purchase”.
Let’slook at the deductions and credits for tuition and fees. In order to claim these tax benefits thestudent, or more likely his/her parents, must spend the money for tuition andfees and then wait until they file their tax return to get the “studentfinancial aid” from the government.
Thesestudents, and parents, need the money when the tuition and fees are due. If they do not have it at the point ofpurchase they often turn to borrowing, placing themselves further in debt.
Thereis currently in place a process for providing student financial aid at thepoint of purchase. And this aid is basedon student and family income, using information from tax returns. Instead of giving those who qualify a taxdeduction or credit on their Form 1040 a year or more later, why not give thesame benefit, based on the same income formula, as part of the existing studentfinancial aid system. This way thestudent, or parents, gets the money upfront to pay for college expenses or, betteryet, the money is distributed directly to the college - and there is no needfor additional borrowing.
Inthe past there have been credits for purchasing energy-efficient products andimprovements, and some still exist. Butagain, the money is provided after-the-fact – as much as a year or more afterthe purchase. I would think moreindividuals would be encouraged to purchase these items if the money wasprovided upfront as a point of purchase discount. Again individuals who want to take advantageof the eventual tax credit may be forced to borrow money to make the qualifyingpurchase, creating more debt.
The“Cash for Clunkers” program of a few years back proves that this can be donerelatively efficiently.
And,as I have said over and over again, the Earned Income Tax Credit, refundableand otherwise, and refundable Child Tax Credit, which, if you call a spade ashovel, are really forms of welfare, would be better distributed via the Aid toFamilies with Dependent Children program – and with substantially less fraud.
Unfortunately,with BO re-elected and the members of Congress being the idiots they are, don’texpect any changes in the current system any time soon.
TTFN
GIT 'ER DONE!
To contact us Click HERE
Itis almost December. When dealing withthe potential “fiscal cliff”, now is not the time to consider long-termissues.
Thefirst, and most important, thing to do ASAP is to extend the AMT patch throughthe end of 2012 (or, more better, through the end of 2013) so that theprocessing of 2012 tax returns and refunds are not delayed, and middle classtaxpayers are not hit with possible tax increases of between $3,000 and $4,000.
Thesecond thing to do is to extend all of the various tax benefits that willexpire on December 31, 2012, for one more year (through the end of 2013), andperhaps also the various popular “extenders” that expired on 12/31/11 alongwith the AMT patch (except for the 2% Social Security reduction). The reason for doing this is so that we do notbegin 2013 with uncertainty concerning proper withholding.
Thetime for considering serious long-term tax reform is January 2013, when the newCongress (which is really not that new) convenes. This is when legislators should beconsidering whether to do away with or limit various tax loopholes andexpenditures, and whether to raise or lower tax rates – while there is almost afull year before any tax legislation must be passed (not that they should waituntil the last minute, as has become the custom).
Congresshas wasted away 2012, and must be made aware that their actions, or ratherinactions, have consequences. They must putaside ridiculous partisan battling and consider the American people for achange.
TTFN
Itis almost December. When dealing withthe potential “fiscal cliff”, now is not the time to consider long-termissues.
Thefirst, and most important, thing to do ASAP is to extend the AMT patch throughthe end of 2012 (or, more better, through the end of 2013) so that theprocessing of 2012 tax returns and refunds are not delayed, and middle classtaxpayers are not hit with possible tax increases of between $3,000 and $4,000.
Thesecond thing to do is to extend all of the various tax benefits that willexpire on December 31, 2012, for one more year (through the end of 2013), andperhaps also the various popular “extenders” that expired on 12/31/11 alongwith the AMT patch (except for the 2% Social Security reduction). The reason for doing this is so that we do notbegin 2013 with uncertainty concerning proper withholding.
Thetime for considering serious long-term tax reform is January 2013, when the newCongress (which is really not that new) convenes. This is when legislators should beconsidering whether to do away with or limit various tax loopholes andexpenditures, and whether to raise or lower tax rates – while there is almost afull year before any tax legislation must be passed (not that they should waituntil the last minute, as has become the custom).
Congresshas wasted away 2012, and must be made aware that their actions, or ratherinactions, have consequences. They must putaside ridiculous partisan battling and consider the American people for achange.
TTFN
THE NATP YEAR-END TAX UPDATE SEMINAR
To contact us Click HERE
As mentioned in Wednesday’s BUZZ,this week I attended the National Association of Tax Professionals’ annualyear-end tax update seminar “The Essential 1040” (it was formerly “Famous”, butis now “Essential”) in New Jersey.
While the day was basically anupdate of what is new for 2012 tax returns, with nothing really new for me,there were a few items of interest.
(1) The draft version of the 2012 Form 1040 (and 1040A) is available for viewing. They are the same as their 2011 counterparts, with the same number oflines. However certain Lines are marked“Reserved” – for the popular tax extenders that expired on December 31, 2011,and have not yet been extended for 2012 by the idiots in Congress, but whichthe IRS is thinking probably will be.
They include Lines 23 and 34 on Page1 of the 2012 Form 1040, and Lines 16 and 18 on the 1040A, are “reserved” forthe deductions for educator expenses and tuition and fees respectively.
On Page 2 of the 2012 Form 1040 Line67 and item b. on Line 71 is also “Reserved”. Line 67 on the 2011 form was used for the First-Time HomebuyerCreditfrom Form 5405, and item b on Line 71 referenced Form 8839, used forQualified Adoption Expenses (which was refundable).
The draft of the 2012 Schedule A,for Itemized Deductions, is also available. Item b of Line 5 (under “Taxes You Paid”) is “Reserved” for the possibleextension of the option to deduct state and local sales taxes instead of stateand local income taxes.
(2) The IRS has said that because of thedelay by the idiots in Congress in dealing with the extenders, including theannual AMT patch, and more detailed checking to prevent fraudulent returns,refunds from electronically filed 2012 income tax returns will no longer beissued in 2 weeks. It will not take 4 to6 weeks to process the refunds.
Thissounds like the processing time we had been used to with manually filedreturns. So it looks like filingelectronically will not get your refund to you any faster than filing manually.
(3) FYI – the “incidental only” (nomeals) per diem allowance for business travel is $5.00. It is the same as 2011.
Thiscovers fees and tips to airport, train station, and hotel personnel. It is generally used by business travelerswho do not incur meal expenses while “on the road” – i.e. they stay withrelatives who feed them, or all meals are included in the price of an event oractivity.
Andthe special Meals and Incidental Expenses per diem for transportation workers(like over-the-road truck drivers) also remains the same as 2011 - $59.00 perday for travel within CONUS (continental US) and $65.00 per day for OCONUS(outside the continental US) travel.
(4) The IRS is getting better atmatching 1099 information returns to amounts reported on the Form 1040 (or1040A), and will continue to issue CP-2000 notices when discrepancies areidentified – so be sure to report all 1099 items somewhere on your return.
And,of course, just because you do not receive a Form 1099 in the mail does notmean that one was not issued and sent to the IRS.
(5) This, I will admit, was new tome. The interest that has accrued on USSavings Bonds is taxable in the year that the individual bond matures, and notnecessarily in the year the bond is cashed in (i.e. a bond matures in 2010, butis not cashed in until 2012).
Iverified this via TREASURY DIRECT -
“Theinterest earned on your savings bonds is subject to federal income tax, whichcan be deferred until redemption, finalmaturity, or other taxable disposition, whichever occurs first.”
(6) Another FYI, especially for tax pros- 43 inmates on death row were issued PTINs (Preparer Tax IdentificationNumbers) - the number issued by the Internal Revenue Service to paid tax returnpreparers who have registered with the IRS.
(7) The seminar leaders, both very good(while some are obviously more better than others -my buddy Beanna Whitlockwill have you in stitches while learning something important about tax law – Ido not recall ever coming across a bad or unsatisfactory NATP seminar leader),both discussed the “back-ended ROTH” strategy.
Ataxpayer wants to contribute to a ROTH IRA for 2012, but has too much income tobe able to do so (MAGI of more than $183,000 if married filing joint, $10,000if married filing separately, or $125,000 for all others).
Sothe taxpayer puts the maximum $5,000 or $6,000 (depending on age) in anon-deductible “traditional” IRA. Oncethis contribution has been processed the taxpayer converts the $5,000 or $6,000in the traditional IRA account to a ROTH account. There is no longer an income threshold forconverting a traditional IRA to a ROTH IRA.
Asthe taxpayer’s basis in the IRA is $5,000 or $6,000, his 2012 non-deductiblecontribution, there is no taxable income to report. If the money deposited in the non-deductibletraditional IRA account earns $5.00 in interest prior to the conversion, thenthe taxpayer reports $5.00 as taxable income.
(8) Be sure to read my THE TAX PROFESSIONAL post for my commentary on items discussed at the seminar thatapply to taxpros.
Ihave now completed my CPE for the year. While the IRS requires 15 hours per year, in 2012 I took 24 hours infederal taxation and 8 hours in state taxation (actually all NATP or NJ-NATPclasses). And there were some federalcourses offered recently that I would have taken if not for cash flow issues. First up in 2013 is the excellent NJ-NATPfamous State Tax Seminar in mid-January.
TTFN
As mentioned in Wednesday’s BUZZ,this week I attended the National Association of Tax Professionals’ annualyear-end tax update seminar “The Essential 1040” (it was formerly “Famous”, butis now “Essential”) in New Jersey.
While the day was basically anupdate of what is new for 2012 tax returns, with nothing really new for me,there were a few items of interest.
(1) The draft version of the 2012 Form 1040 (and 1040A) is available for viewing. They are the same as their 2011 counterparts, with the same number oflines. However certain Lines are marked“Reserved” – for the popular tax extenders that expired on December 31, 2011,and have not yet been extended for 2012 by the idiots in Congress, but whichthe IRS is thinking probably will be.
They include Lines 23 and 34 on Page1 of the 2012 Form 1040, and Lines 16 and 18 on the 1040A, are “reserved” forthe deductions for educator expenses and tuition and fees respectively.
On Page 2 of the 2012 Form 1040 Line67 and item b. on Line 71 is also “Reserved”. Line 67 on the 2011 form was used for the First-Time HomebuyerCreditfrom Form 5405, and item b on Line 71 referenced Form 8839, used forQualified Adoption Expenses (which was refundable).
The draft of the 2012 Schedule A,for Itemized Deductions, is also available. Item b of Line 5 (under “Taxes You Paid”) is “Reserved” for the possibleextension of the option to deduct state and local sales taxes instead of stateand local income taxes.
(2) The IRS has said that because of thedelay by the idiots in Congress in dealing with the extenders, including theannual AMT patch, and more detailed checking to prevent fraudulent returns,refunds from electronically filed 2012 income tax returns will no longer beissued in 2 weeks. It will not take 4 to6 weeks to process the refunds.
Thissounds like the processing time we had been used to with manually filedreturns. So it looks like filingelectronically will not get your refund to you any faster than filing manually.
(3) FYI – the “incidental only” (nomeals) per diem allowance for business travel is $5.00. It is the same as 2011.
Thiscovers fees and tips to airport, train station, and hotel personnel. It is generally used by business travelerswho do not incur meal expenses while “on the road” – i.e. they stay withrelatives who feed them, or all meals are included in the price of an event oractivity.
Andthe special Meals and Incidental Expenses per diem for transportation workers(like over-the-road truck drivers) also remains the same as 2011 - $59.00 perday for travel within CONUS (continental US) and $65.00 per day for OCONUS(outside the continental US) travel.
(4) The IRS is getting better atmatching 1099 information returns to amounts reported on the Form 1040 (or1040A), and will continue to issue CP-2000 notices when discrepancies areidentified – so be sure to report all 1099 items somewhere on your return.
And,of course, just because you do not receive a Form 1099 in the mail does notmean that one was not issued and sent to the IRS.
(5) This, I will admit, was new tome. The interest that has accrued on USSavings Bonds is taxable in the year that the individual bond matures, and notnecessarily in the year the bond is cashed in (i.e. a bond matures in 2010, butis not cashed in until 2012).
Iverified this via TREASURY DIRECT -
“Theinterest earned on your savings bonds is subject to federal income tax, whichcan be deferred until redemption, finalmaturity, or other taxable disposition, whichever occurs first.”
(6) Another FYI, especially for tax pros- 43 inmates on death row were issued PTINs (Preparer Tax IdentificationNumbers) - the number issued by the Internal Revenue Service to paid tax returnpreparers who have registered with the IRS.
(7) The seminar leaders, both very good(while some are obviously more better than others -my buddy Beanna Whitlockwill have you in stitches while learning something important about tax law – Ido not recall ever coming across a bad or unsatisfactory NATP seminar leader),both discussed the “back-ended ROTH” strategy.
Ataxpayer wants to contribute to a ROTH IRA for 2012, but has too much income tobe able to do so (MAGI of more than $183,000 if married filing joint, $10,000if married filing separately, or $125,000 for all others).
Sothe taxpayer puts the maximum $5,000 or $6,000 (depending on age) in anon-deductible “traditional” IRA. Oncethis contribution has been processed the taxpayer converts the $5,000 or $6,000in the traditional IRA account to a ROTH account. There is no longer an income threshold forconverting a traditional IRA to a ROTH IRA.
Asthe taxpayer’s basis in the IRA is $5,000 or $6,000, his 2012 non-deductiblecontribution, there is no taxable income to report. If the money deposited in the non-deductibletraditional IRA account earns $5.00 in interest prior to the conversion, thenthe taxpayer reports $5.00 as taxable income.
(8) Be sure to read my THE TAX PROFESSIONAL post for my commentary on items discussed at the seminar thatapply to taxpros.
Ihave now completed my CPE for the year. While the IRS requires 15 hours per year, in 2012 I took 24 hours infederal taxation and 8 hours in state taxation (actually all NATP or NJ-NATPclasses). And there were some federalcourses offered recently that I would have taken if not for cash flow issues. First up in 2013 is the excellent NJ-NATPfamous State Tax Seminar in mid-January.
TTFN
29 Kasım 2012 Perşembe
Thank god all politics isn't local
To contact us Click HERE
Among the wonderful legacies of segregation days here in the Old South is Virginia's peculiar election schedule, which has us voting for state and local candidates the year before the quadrennial presidential elections.
This was an innovation of the Byrd Machine, which wanted to make voting as hard as possible and thereby keep important decisions — such as who would control the state legislature and county courthouses — out of the hands of the riff-raff who came out for national elections.
So election day is tomorrow, and here in Loudoun County we have the interesting spectacle of the local Republican Party having been so completely purchased by the development industry and the loony right that you can find some of the most acerbic attacks on the Republican candidates coming from a staunchly conservative political website called "Too Conservative."
Among the parade of GOP loonies on the ballot are
a candidate for sheriff who was shot by his girlfriend and was served with a restraining order for domestic abuse ("I was the victim," he explained, adding, "I’m not a womanizer. I tried it, I’m not very good at it")
an incumbent candidate for county board of supervisors who runs a political action group devoted to exposing the "radical homosexual agenda" (last year he revealed that the TSA's body scanners at airports are actually "homosexual porno scanners")
a candidate for state senate who got his start in politics on the county library board crusading against the "pornography" available on the computers in the libraries and upon his election to the general assembly spent most of his time sending plastic fetuses to fellow legislators to protest abortion (he also opposed a spousal rape bill, explaining that a woman in a nightie is asking for it: “I do not know how on earth you can validly get a conviction of a husband-wife rape where they are living together, sleeping in the same bed, she’s in a nightie, and so forth")
the county prosecutor, up for reelection, who cost the county hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses and nearly ruined the life and career of a well-regarded school assistant principal in a baseless prosecution on a completely fabricated charge of child pornography
a school board candidate whom the same prosecutor declined to file charges against after he was arrested for spousal abuse
We are also proud home to the Republican Party local committee that sent out the tasteful picture of President Obama as a zombie with a bullet hole in his head ("a light-hearted attempt to inject satire humor," an official explained), while another recent member of the local Republican Committee routinely threatens to "beat up" people who disagree with him.
It almost makes me nostalgic for the Byrd Machine.
This was an innovation of the Byrd Machine, which wanted to make voting as hard as possible and thereby keep important decisions — such as who would control the state legislature and county courthouses — out of the hands of the riff-raff who came out for national elections.
So election day is tomorrow, and here in Loudoun County we have the interesting spectacle of the local Republican Party having been so completely purchased by the development industry and the loony right that you can find some of the most acerbic attacks on the Republican candidates coming from a staunchly conservative political website called "Too Conservative."
Among the parade of GOP loonies on the ballot are
a candidate for sheriff who was shot by his girlfriend and was served with a restraining order for domestic abuse ("I was the victim," he explained, adding, "I’m not a womanizer. I tried it, I’m not very good at it")
an incumbent candidate for county board of supervisors who runs a political action group devoted to exposing the "radical homosexual agenda" (last year he revealed that the TSA's body scanners at airports are actually "homosexual porno scanners")
a candidate for state senate who got his start in politics on the county library board crusading against the "pornography" available on the computers in the libraries and upon his election to the general assembly spent most of his time sending plastic fetuses to fellow legislators to protest abortion (he also opposed a spousal rape bill, explaining that a woman in a nightie is asking for it: “I do not know how on earth you can validly get a conviction of a husband-wife rape where they are living together, sleeping in the same bed, she’s in a nightie, and so forth")
the county prosecutor, up for reelection, who cost the county hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses and nearly ruined the life and career of a well-regarded school assistant principal in a baseless prosecution on a completely fabricated charge of child pornography
a school board candidate whom the same prosecutor declined to file charges against after he was arrested for spousal abuse
We are also proud home to the Republican Party local committee that sent out the tasteful picture of President Obama as a zombie with a bullet hole in his head ("a light-hearted attempt to inject satire humor," an official explained), while another recent member of the local Republican Committee routinely threatens to "beat up" people who disagree with him.
It almost makes me nostalgic for the Byrd Machine.
You're fired!
To contact us Click HERE
Energized with their newfound enthusiasm for class warfare (you can always tell an amateur), the Republican candidates were making much of Romney's "gaffe" yesterday in which, speaking of the supposed need for more competition in health insurance, he displayed his solidarity with the working classes by saying, "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me."
You know something really strange is going on when Ron Paul is out there denouncing capitalists who take money from the middle class to enrich themselves.
But what left me marveling was not Romney's cluelessly echoing the very charges against his performance at Bain Capital, but rather his obliviousness to the fact that any firing that goes on in the health insurance business is done by the insurance companies, not consumers. After all, everyone wants to fire their health insurance company, usually while listening to the same Kenny G number for the 132nd time on hold waiting to have someone in Bombay swear they have no record of their claim. That's hardly the point when the insurers hold all the cards.
About a century ago the human race woke up to the fact that insurance is not a business like selling fruitcakes, notions, or drygoods. For one thing, the consumer is buying a pig in a very large poke when he takes out a life or casualty or other policy, paying up front for a benefit he may see only much later if at all. It's a situation absolutely made to order for those who dream of Ponzi schemes. For another, there is a huge disparity in information on the part of buyers and sellers: insurance companies employ rafts of actuaries to figure out how to make a profit; consumers simply have little basis for knowing what a fair price is. Thus in the late 19th and early 20th century, every state began tightly regulating insurers to make sure they did not flim-flam the customers, that they were held to standards of performance, and that they maintained adequate capital reserves to pay off claims that came due.
Any sentient mortal who has ever dealt with a health insurance company, or even more, who has had to buy his own heath insurance as a self-employed person, knows how ludicrous Romney's fairy tale about competition and consumer choice is in this distinctly un-free-market. The whole raison d'etre of the federal health care law was, lest we forget, that the free market has been an utter failure when insurers could turn you down for any reason or no reason; could reject you for having a preexisting condition; could raise your premiums by breathtaking amounts once they had you signed up; could drop you for getting sick; could drag out processing your claims for months or years; could arbitrarily choose not to cover certain needed procedures or conditions.
Buying a health policy outside of a group is more like applying tor a commission as a nuclear sub commander than hiring a guy to rake your leaves: comparison shopping has been virtually impossible; you have had to submit one application at a time, just to find out what whether you could get coverage and what the real price would actually be. And the companies (still) are masters of muddying the waters with extraordinarily complex pseudo-choices that simply obscure how much you're actually going to end up paying in the end and which make any true comparison shopping impossible, with endless variations on deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, and optional coverage. (But they all have VERY nice colorful photographs on their web sites and brochures depicting attractive people being healthy.)
Even on an individual consumer level, even those who can afford health coverage don't have a prayer in this game.
But of course, the far greater market failure in health insurance is that insurers, left to their own devices and free competition, find that the way to maximize profits is simple: only sell policies to people who don't get sick.
This does not work very well as a system of improving the nation's health, containing health care costs, or encouraging preventive care.
You know something really strange is going on when Ron Paul is out there denouncing capitalists who take money from the middle class to enrich themselves.
But what left me marveling was not Romney's cluelessly echoing the very charges against his performance at Bain Capital, but rather his obliviousness to the fact that any firing that goes on in the health insurance business is done by the insurance companies, not consumers. After all, everyone wants to fire their health insurance company, usually while listening to the same Kenny G number for the 132nd time on hold waiting to have someone in Bombay swear they have no record of their claim. That's hardly the point when the insurers hold all the cards.
About a century ago the human race woke up to the fact that insurance is not a business like selling fruitcakes, notions, or drygoods. For one thing, the consumer is buying a pig in a very large poke when he takes out a life or casualty or other policy, paying up front for a benefit he may see only much later if at all. It's a situation absolutely made to order for those who dream of Ponzi schemes. For another, there is a huge disparity in information on the part of buyers and sellers: insurance companies employ rafts of actuaries to figure out how to make a profit; consumers simply have little basis for knowing what a fair price is. Thus in the late 19th and early 20th century, every state began tightly regulating insurers to make sure they did not flim-flam the customers, that they were held to standards of performance, and that they maintained adequate capital reserves to pay off claims that came due.
Any sentient mortal who has ever dealt with a health insurance company, or even more, who has had to buy his own heath insurance as a self-employed person, knows how ludicrous Romney's fairy tale about competition and consumer choice is in this distinctly un-free-market. The whole raison d'etre of the federal health care law was, lest we forget, that the free market has been an utter failure when insurers could turn you down for any reason or no reason; could reject you for having a preexisting condition; could raise your premiums by breathtaking amounts once they had you signed up; could drop you for getting sick; could drag out processing your claims for months or years; could arbitrarily choose not to cover certain needed procedures or conditions.
Buying a health policy outside of a group is more like applying tor a commission as a nuclear sub commander than hiring a guy to rake your leaves: comparison shopping has been virtually impossible; you have had to submit one application at a time, just to find out what whether you could get coverage and what the real price would actually be. And the companies (still) are masters of muddying the waters with extraordinarily complex pseudo-choices that simply obscure how much you're actually going to end up paying in the end and which make any true comparison shopping impossible, with endless variations on deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, and optional coverage. (But they all have VERY nice colorful photographs on their web sites and brochures depicting attractive people being healthy.)
Even on an individual consumer level, even those who can afford health coverage don't have a prayer in this game.
But of course, the far greater market failure in health insurance is that insurers, left to their own devices and free competition, find that the way to maximize profits is simple: only sell policies to people who don't get sick.
This does not work very well as a system of improving the nation's health, containing health care costs, or encouraging preventive care.
The '60s made us do it
To contact us Click HERE
Paul Krugman's column today—noting that Charles Murray's new much ballyhooed book on the social divide is merely the latest example of a venerable conservative tactic to attribute all problems in American society to vague, unspecified things that Liberals Did in the Sixties—reminds me of my favorite anecdote from my days at the late and not-too-lamented weekly newsmagazine U.S. News & World Report.
One of the regular columnists for U.S. News at my time there was a superannuated softball buddy of demi-billionaire owner Mortimer B. Zuckerman's named John Leo.
Leo had been a fairly prominent New York Times reporter eons previous but by the '90s devoted his declining years to cranking out column after column for Snooze, every one of which was almost identical; they always began by decrying the decay of American values (generally defined as those upheld by the Catholic Church, particularly its implaccable opposition to abortion) and ended by concluding that this was all a direct and ineluctable consequence of "liberal permissiveness" of the 1960s.
A friend of mine on the magazine staff had the dubious honor of editing these columns. This editor frequently went to gym at the hotel next door where he had a membership and had a nodding acquaintance with another gym member, a lawyer at one of the nearby (and as I recall fairly old-fashioned) law firms.
One day my colleague was wearing his U.S. News T-shirt at the gym, which prompted his nodding acquaintance to speak up.
"Do you work at U.S. News?" he asked.
My colleague admitted the truth of the accusation.
"Really—do you know this guy John Leo?" he continued.
My colleague replied, "As as a matter of fact, I edit his column."
"Really," said the lawyer, growing more interested. "Could you give him a message for me?"
My colleague graciously said he would.
"I GET IT!" said the lawyer, and turned away.
One of the regular columnists for U.S. News at my time there was a superannuated softball buddy of demi-billionaire owner Mortimer B. Zuckerman's named John Leo.
Leo had been a fairly prominent New York Times reporter eons previous but by the '90s devoted his declining years to cranking out column after column for Snooze, every one of which was almost identical; they always began by decrying the decay of American values (generally defined as those upheld by the Catholic Church, particularly its implaccable opposition to abortion) and ended by concluding that this was all a direct and ineluctable consequence of "liberal permissiveness" of the 1960s.
A friend of mine on the magazine staff had the dubious honor of editing these columns. This editor frequently went to gym at the hotel next door where he had a membership and had a nodding acquaintance with another gym member, a lawyer at one of the nearby (and as I recall fairly old-fashioned) law firms.
One day my colleague was wearing his U.S. News T-shirt at the gym, which prompted his nodding acquaintance to speak up.
"Do you work at U.S. News?" he asked.
My colleague admitted the truth of the accusation.
"Really—do you know this guy John Leo?" he continued.
My colleague replied, "As as a matter of fact, I edit his column."
"Really," said the lawyer, growing more interested. "Could you give him a message for me?"
My colleague graciously said he would.
"I GET IT!" said the lawyer, and turned away.
I'm married to a US Citizen -- What Happens Next?
To contact us Click HERE
Marriage is a wonderful thing -- but how does it effect immigration law? Legal status? LPR (legal permanent resident or lawful permanent resident) and work status (EAD -- employment authorization documentation)?
It is important to remember that immigration is roughly divided into to sections -- innies and outties. Alright, perhaps the simplistic description is misplaced here, but the concept is the same. Are you inside the country, or outside the country? If you are outside the country, the process is I129F, I130, K3 (spouse). If you are inside the country, the process is I130, I485, and if illegal, I601 (waiver/hardship -- tricky here, as there are proposed rules changes with the 601/601A).
What are all these "I" forms, and what do they do?
First, "I" stands for "Immigration" and designates a type of government form related to USCIS (United States Customs and Immigration Service). You will occasionally also see EOIR forms (Executive Office of Immigration Review -- that's the immigration court), and DHS (Department of Homeland Security) or DS (Department of State) forms. However, for today's discussion, we're only focusing on "I" forms.
The I130 is arguably the most important form of the "spousal" immigration group. It notifies USCIS that a US citizen or LPR (green-card holder)has a family member (in this case, his/her spouse) that is eligible for entry into the US. By itself, the I130 does nothing. However, without the document, nothing else can be done to convert a non-immigrant status to an immigrant (i.e. wants to stay permanently) status.
An I129F is filed to request that a foreign national, currently outside of the United States, be granted a "K" visa. K visas permit finances (K1), family members (K2), and spouses (K3) entry into the United States for a set duration (in the case of a K3, the amount of time is 2 years, and includes permission to file an I765 once in the country to permit work). An actual "K" visa is not a form. It is a stamp/processing placed inside the foreign national's passport indicate the type of entry permitted. The form required is the I129F (F = Fiance, however, it is used for K2/K3 visas, also) filed by the US citizen/LPR. Once approved by USCIS, it is forwarded to the consulate in the area where the fiance/family member/spouse resides, and the fiance/family member/spouse can then contact the consulate to setup and interview and background check. Once they complete the interview and background check, the family member/fiance/spouse's passport is stamped, and they may enter the US under the immigrant visa classification "K".
Next blog will discuss the "in country" (innies!) processing of family members/fiances/spouses.
Have an immigration law question? Ask us! This is something we do everyday. From simple phone discussions to complex immigration court litigation. We're here to help -- and your first call is always free.
Sean R. Hanover, Esq
HanoverLawPC.com
Contact UsVisit the Hanover Law firm at www.hanoverlawpc.com
It is important to remember that immigration is roughly divided into to sections -- innies and outties. Alright, perhaps the simplistic description is misplaced here, but the concept is the same. Are you inside the country, or outside the country? If you are outside the country, the process is I129F, I130, K3 (spouse). If you are inside the country, the process is I130, I485, and if illegal, I601 (waiver/hardship -- tricky here, as there are proposed rules changes with the 601/601A).
What are all these "I" forms, and what do they do?
First, "I" stands for "Immigration" and designates a type of government form related to USCIS (United States Customs and Immigration Service). You will occasionally also see EOIR forms (Executive Office of Immigration Review -- that's the immigration court), and DHS (Department of Homeland Security) or DS (Department of State) forms. However, for today's discussion, we're only focusing on "I" forms.
The I130 is arguably the most important form of the "spousal" immigration group. It notifies USCIS that a US citizen or LPR (green-card holder)has a family member (in this case, his/her spouse) that is eligible for entry into the US. By itself, the I130 does nothing. However, without the document, nothing else can be done to convert a non-immigrant status to an immigrant (i.e. wants to stay permanently) status.
An I129F is filed to request that a foreign national, currently outside of the United States, be granted a "K" visa. K visas permit finances (K1), family members (K2), and spouses (K3) entry into the United States for a set duration (in the case of a K3, the amount of time is 2 years, and includes permission to file an I765 once in the country to permit work). An actual "K" visa is not a form. It is a stamp/processing placed inside the foreign national's passport indicate the type of entry permitted. The form required is the I129F (F = Fiance, however, it is used for K2/K3 visas, also) filed by the US citizen/LPR. Once approved by USCIS, it is forwarded to the consulate in the area where the fiance/family member/spouse resides, and the fiance/family member/spouse can then contact the consulate to setup and interview and background check. Once they complete the interview and background check, the family member/fiance/spouse's passport is stamped, and they may enter the US under the immigrant visa classification "K".
Next blog will discuss the "in country" (innies!) processing of family members/fiances/spouses.
Have an immigration law question? Ask us! This is something we do everyday. From simple phone discussions to complex immigration court litigation. We're here to help -- and your first call is always free.
Sean R. Hanover, Esq
HanoverLawPC.com
Contact UsVisit the Hanover Law firm at www.hanoverlawpc.com
Marriage Fraud and INA 212 - or 237(a)(1)(H)
To contact us Click HERE
Marriage fraud is more common than most folks think. Application for US Citizenship and green-card status (LPR) is a long, painful road. Marriage offers a relatively rapid acceptance into the USC/LPR ranks, and is therefore extremely tempting from a fraud persepctive.
To defeat a claim of marriage fraud, some of our clients have actually attempted to to bribe their respective former spouse to recant his/her statement to USCIS that the marriage was fraudulent. Usually, it is the sworn statement of one or the other spouse that gives rise to a fraud claim. Of course, our law firm starts singing loudly at that point and covering our ears..one can never condone such conduct (perpetuating fraud and all). However, if the original nay-sayer DID recant, you would have a legal argument…
That having been said, if you really want to fight a marriage fraud, you really need to attack the original marriage and show that the spouse currently being charged with marriage fraud was NOT committing fraud. That is a state action against the other spouse to show intent during (or at the time of) the original marriage. If you can get a judgment showing that the court found the marriage to be just and true, and that the other party is intentionally misrepresenting the situation, you can make a viable argument that marriage fraud was not operative in the instant case. This is a fun argument to make, and is based, again, on a state level trial against the spouse alleging the fraud.
You won’t be able to toss the marriage fraud via a 212 waiver (asking for discretionary grant of "leniency" based on fraud) as it was not incident to arrival:
However, if you re-apply for admission and are denied, it is possible that a 212 might be available…but that is the instance where admittance is denied based on the fraud, you and re-open the marriage fraud allegation with the intent to retry the underlying issue (in this case, the BIA has held that when reviewing a subsequent request regarding the marriage fraud, the review must be taken anew and must be a substantial consideration, not relying solely on the determination alone of the prior finding). Generally, marriage fraud is not eligible for a 212 waiver because it was not fraud at the time of entry.
An interesting aside from this (same article):
Note, however, that the in the excerpt above, it would appear the applicant was admitted as an LPR (presumably through consular processing, for example), and as such the fraud was relied upon for entry.
Marriage fraud is generally terminal -- unless the client desires to fight the underlying cause of the fraud. The time required for this is extensive, and the expenses are not trivial. Waivers are rare, and generally, like asylum fraud, the bar is permanent. However, a good lawyer can develop a compelling narrative and ensure every possible opportunity to stay is developed. This freuqently involves state court.
Call us today to discuss your case. WE CAN HELP. However, the longer you wait, the riskier it becomes when you are finally brought before an immigration judge.
S
Sean R. Hanover, Esq
HanoverLawPC.com
Contact UsVisit the Hanover Law firm at www.hanoverlawpc.com
To defeat a claim of marriage fraud, some of our clients have actually attempted to to bribe their respective former spouse to recant his/her statement to USCIS that the marriage was fraudulent. Usually, it is the sworn statement of one or the other spouse that gives rise to a fraud claim. Of course, our law firm starts singing loudly at that point and covering our ears..one can never condone such conduct (perpetuating fraud and all). However, if the original nay-sayer DID recant, you would have a legal argument…
That having been said, if you really want to fight a marriage fraud, you really need to attack the original marriage and show that the spouse currently being charged with marriage fraud was NOT committing fraud. That is a state action against the other spouse to show intent during (or at the time of) the original marriage. If you can get a judgment showing that the court found the marriage to be just and true, and that the other party is intentionally misrepresenting the situation, you can make a viable argument that marriage fraud was not operative in the instant case. This is a fun argument to make, and is based, again, on a state level trial against the spouse alleging the fraud.
You won’t be able to toss the marriage fraud via a 212 waiver (asking for discretionary grant of "leniency" based on fraud) as it was not incident to arrival:
While § 237(a)(1)(H) is a deportation waiver that requires a prior admission, it also requires that, at the time of that admission, the applicant was inadmissible due to fraud or misrepresentation. The BIA has held that the waiver is not available if the fraud or misrepresentation occurred subsequent to the admission. See, e.g., Salas-Velasquez v. INS, 34 F.3d 705, 708 (8th Cir. 1994) (former §241(f) waiver unavailable where applicant entered U.S. on a valid visitor visa and subsequently entered into a fraudulent marriage with a U.S. citizen); Matter ofConnelly, 19 I&N Dec. 156 (BIA 1984) (addressing the former § 241(f) waiver).(see http://www.ailf.org/lac/pa/lac_pa_fraudwaiver.pdf)
However, if you re-apply for admission and are denied, it is possible that a 212 might be available…but that is the instance where admittance is denied based on the fraud, you and re-open the marriage fraud allegation with the intent to retry the underlying issue (in this case, the BIA has held that when reviewing a subsequent request regarding the marriage fraud, the review must be taken anew and must be a substantial consideration, not relying solely on the determination alone of the prior finding). Generally, marriage fraud is not eligible for a 212 waiver because it was not fraud at the time of entry.
An interesting aside from this (same article):
Similarly, in certain marriage fraud cases, the retroactive validation of the applicant’s LPR status is critical. Specifically, where a non-citizen has been found to have committed prior marriage fraud, but now is in a valid marriage to a U.S. citizen or LPR, INA § 204(c) would bar approval of a visa petition filed by the second spouse. Thus the non-citizen would be barred from ever immigrating through this second, valid marriage. However, in Virk v. INS, 295 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th Cir. 2002), the Ninth Circuit held that, where the non-citizen was admitted as an LPR based upon the fraudulent marriage, the grant of a § 237(a)(1)((H) waiver would waive the underlying fraud and the non-citizen would retain LPR status. As such, the court found that there was no need for a new visa petition by the second spouse and INA § 204(c) was inapplicable
Note, however, that the in the excerpt above, it would appear the applicant was admitted as an LPR (presumably through consular processing, for example), and as such the fraud was relied upon for entry.
Marriage fraud is generally terminal -- unless the client desires to fight the underlying cause of the fraud. The time required for this is extensive, and the expenses are not trivial. Waivers are rare, and generally, like asylum fraud, the bar is permanent. However, a good lawyer can develop a compelling narrative and ensure every possible opportunity to stay is developed. This freuqently involves state court.
Call us today to discuss your case. WE CAN HELP. However, the longer you wait, the riskier it becomes when you are finally brought before an immigration judge.
S
Sean R. Hanover, Esq
HanoverLawPC.com
Contact UsVisit the Hanover Law firm at www.hanoverlawpc.com
28 Kasım 2012 Çarşamba
President Obama's Health Care plan and some different ways to comply!
To contact us Click HERE
The safe harbors provide methods of determining the full-time status of seasonal employees and those with unpredictable work schedules for purposes of the “shared responsibility” requirements.
Generally, for months beginning after Dec. 31, 2013, the law requires employers with at least 50 full-time employees on average during the preceding calendar year to sponsor and offer full-time employees and their dependents health coverage meeting certain requirements or else pay an assessment. [I wonder if this going to put a premium on single workers over marriied workers because a single policy is less than a family policy] The law defines full time as working on average at least 30 hours per week, but Congress left it to the IRS, along with the U.S. Department of Labor, to prescribe how that average is computed and applied.
A lookback “measurement period” safe harbor for averaging hours of ongoing employees and a “stability period” to which the average applies. For new hires an initial measurement period of between three and six months for workers with variable or uncertain hours.
The IRS expanded the measurement period for new variable-hour and seasonal employees to the same as for ongoing employees, between three and 12 months. The stability period must be at least as long as the initial measurement period and no less than six months. The measurement and administrative periods combined must not extend beyond the last day of the first calendar month that begins on or after the first anniversary of the employee’s start date.
The IRS expanded and revised optional safe harbors on which applicable large employers may rely in complying with requirements starting in 2014 to provide health insurance coverage to their full-time employees.
The safe harbors provide methods of determining the full-time status of seasonal employees and those with unpredictable work schedules for purposes of the “shared responsibility” requirements.
Generally, for months beginning after Dec. 31, 2013, the law requires employers with at least 50 full-time employees on average during the preceding calendar year to sponsor and offer full-time employees and their dependents health coverage meeting certain requirements or else pay an assessment. [I wonder if this going to put a premium on single workers over marriied workers because a single policy is less than a family policy] The law defines full time as working on average at least 30 hours per week, but Congress left it to the IRS, along with the U.S. Department of Labor, to prescribe how that average is computed and applied.
A lookback “measurement period” safe harbor for averaging hours of ongoing employees and a “stability period” to which the average applies. For new hires an initial measurement period of between three and six months for workers with variable or uncertain hours.
The IRS expanded the measurement period for new variable-hour and seasonal employees to the same as for ongoing employees, between three and 12 months. The stability period must be at least as long as the initial measurement period and no less than six months. The measurement and administrative periods combined must not extend beyond the last day of the first calendar month that begins on or after the first anniversary of the employee’s start date.
You're fired!
To contact us Click HERE
Energized with their newfound enthusiasm for class warfare (you can always tell an amateur), the Republican candidates were making much of Romney's "gaffe" yesterday in which, speaking of the supposed need for more competition in health insurance, he displayed his solidarity with the working classes by saying, "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me."
You know something really strange is going on when Ron Paul is out there denouncing capitalists who take money from the middle class to enrich themselves.
But what left me marveling was not Romney's cluelessly echoing the very charges against his performance at Bain Capital, but rather his obliviousness to the fact that any firing that goes on in the health insurance business is done by the insurance companies, not consumers. After all, everyone wants to fire their health insurance company, usually while listening to the same Kenny G number for the 132nd time on hold waiting to have someone in Bombay swear they have no record of their claim. That's hardly the point when the insurers hold all the cards.
About a century ago the human race woke up to the fact that insurance is not a business like selling fruitcakes, notions, or drygoods. For one thing, the consumer is buying a pig in a very large poke when he takes out a life or casualty or other policy, paying up front for a benefit he may see only much later if at all. It's a situation absolutely made to order for those who dream of Ponzi schemes. For another, there is a huge disparity in information on the part of buyers and sellers: insurance companies employ rafts of actuaries to figure out how to make a profit; consumers simply have little basis for knowing what a fair price is. Thus in the late 19th and early 20th century, every state began tightly regulating insurers to make sure they did not flim-flam the customers, that they were held to standards of performance, and that they maintained adequate capital reserves to pay off claims that came due.
Any sentient mortal who has ever dealt with a health insurance company, or even more, who has had to buy his own heath insurance as a self-employed person, knows how ludicrous Romney's fairy tale about competition and consumer choice is in this distinctly un-free-market. The whole raison d'etre of the federal health care law was, lest we forget, that the free market has been an utter failure when insurers could turn you down for any reason or no reason; could reject you for having a preexisting condition; could raise your premiums by breathtaking amounts once they had you signed up; could drop you for getting sick; could drag out processing your claims for months or years; could arbitrarily choose not to cover certain needed procedures or conditions.
Buying a health policy outside of a group is more like applying tor a commission as a nuclear sub commander than hiring a guy to rake your leaves: comparison shopping has been virtually impossible; you have had to submit one application at a time, just to find out what whether you could get coverage and what the real price would actually be. And the companies (still) are masters of muddying the waters with extraordinarily complex pseudo-choices that simply obscure how much you're actually going to end up paying in the end and which make any true comparison shopping impossible, with endless variations on deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, and optional coverage. (But they all have VERY nice colorful photographs on their web sites and brochures depicting attractive people being healthy.)
Even on an individual consumer level, even those who can afford health coverage don't have a prayer in this game.
But of course, the far greater market failure in health insurance is that insurers, left to their own devices and free competition, find that the way to maximize profits is simple: only sell policies to people who don't get sick.
This does not work very well as a system of improving the nation's health, containing health care costs, or encouraging preventive care.
You know something really strange is going on when Ron Paul is out there denouncing capitalists who take money from the middle class to enrich themselves.
But what left me marveling was not Romney's cluelessly echoing the very charges against his performance at Bain Capital, but rather his obliviousness to the fact that any firing that goes on in the health insurance business is done by the insurance companies, not consumers. After all, everyone wants to fire their health insurance company, usually while listening to the same Kenny G number for the 132nd time on hold waiting to have someone in Bombay swear they have no record of their claim. That's hardly the point when the insurers hold all the cards.
About a century ago the human race woke up to the fact that insurance is not a business like selling fruitcakes, notions, or drygoods. For one thing, the consumer is buying a pig in a very large poke when he takes out a life or casualty or other policy, paying up front for a benefit he may see only much later if at all. It's a situation absolutely made to order for those who dream of Ponzi schemes. For another, there is a huge disparity in information on the part of buyers and sellers: insurance companies employ rafts of actuaries to figure out how to make a profit; consumers simply have little basis for knowing what a fair price is. Thus in the late 19th and early 20th century, every state began tightly regulating insurers to make sure they did not flim-flam the customers, that they were held to standards of performance, and that they maintained adequate capital reserves to pay off claims that came due.
Any sentient mortal who has ever dealt with a health insurance company, or even more, who has had to buy his own heath insurance as a self-employed person, knows how ludicrous Romney's fairy tale about competition and consumer choice is in this distinctly un-free-market. The whole raison d'etre of the federal health care law was, lest we forget, that the free market has been an utter failure when insurers could turn you down for any reason or no reason; could reject you for having a preexisting condition; could raise your premiums by breathtaking amounts once they had you signed up; could drop you for getting sick; could drag out processing your claims for months or years; could arbitrarily choose not to cover certain needed procedures or conditions.
Buying a health policy outside of a group is more like applying tor a commission as a nuclear sub commander than hiring a guy to rake your leaves: comparison shopping has been virtually impossible; you have had to submit one application at a time, just to find out what whether you could get coverage and what the real price would actually be. And the companies (still) are masters of muddying the waters with extraordinarily complex pseudo-choices that simply obscure how much you're actually going to end up paying in the end and which make any true comparison shopping impossible, with endless variations on deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, and optional coverage. (But they all have VERY nice colorful photographs on their web sites and brochures depicting attractive people being healthy.)
Even on an individual consumer level, even those who can afford health coverage don't have a prayer in this game.
But of course, the far greater market failure in health insurance is that insurers, left to their own devices and free competition, find that the way to maximize profits is simple: only sell policies to people who don't get sick.
This does not work very well as a system of improving the nation's health, containing health care costs, or encouraging preventive care.
LET'S DO SOMETHING RIGHT FOR A CHANGE
To contact us Click HERE
Therehas been a lot of talk lately about “tax expenditures” and the 47% of Americanswho either pay absolutely no federal income tax or actually make a profit byfiling a tax return (thanks to “refundable” tax credits).
Overthe years the idiots in Congress have created a mucking fess of the Tax Code bymaking it the method of delivery for various social welfare benefits and toencourage certain beneficial purchases, which has created the 47%. This is certainly not the best, nor the mostefficient, way to deliver or distribute these benefits – but it is easy. And, as we all know, the idiots in Congressare all for choosing the quickest and easiest way to do things rather thanactually having to sit down and think.
Whilethere are many “tax expenditures” that should be completely done away with,many of the social and societal benefit programs run through the Code areactually good and have merit. But theyshould be delivered and distributed separately out of the budget of theappropriate cabinet department – and not on the 1040.
AsI have posted here before, doing this is much “more better” for many reasons -
(1)It would be easier for the government to verify that the recipient of thesubsidy or hand-out actually qualified for the money, greatly reducing fraud.And tax preparers would no longer need to take on the added responsibility ofhaving to verify if a person qualified for government funds.
(2)The qualifying individual(s) would get the money at the “point of purchase”,when it is really needed, and not have to go “out of pocket” up front and waitto be reimbursed when they file their tax return.
(3)We would be able to calculate the true income tax burden of individuals. Many of the current 47% would still bereceiving government hand-outs, but it would not be tied into the income taxsystem so they would actually be paying federal income tax.
(4)We could measure the true cost of education, housing, health, welfare, etcprograms in the federal budget because the various subsidies would be properlyallocated to the appropriate departments and not be reported as a part of netincome collected via income tax.
(5)The Tax Code would be much less complicated, the cost to the public forpreparing a tax return would be reduced, and the IRS would have much less toprocess and to audit.
Item(2) is a very important one. A major problemwith using the Tax Code to distribute government benefits via tax deductionsand credits is that the benefits are provided “after-the-fact” and not at the “pointof purchase”.
Let’slook at the deductions and credits for tuition and fees. In order to claim these tax benefits thestudent, or more likely his/her parents, must spend the money for tuition andfees and then wait until they file their tax return to get the “studentfinancial aid” from the government.
Thesestudents, and parents, need the money when the tuition and fees are due. If they do not have it at the point ofpurchase they often turn to borrowing, placing themselves further in debt.
Thereis currently in place a process for providing student financial aid at thepoint of purchase. And this aid is basedon student and family income, using information from tax returns. Instead of giving those who qualify a taxdeduction or credit on their Form 1040 a year or more later, why not give thesame benefit, based on the same income formula, as part of the existing studentfinancial aid system. This way thestudent, or parents, gets the money upfront to pay for college expenses or, betteryet, the money is distributed directly to the college - and there is no needfor additional borrowing.
Inthe past there have been credits for purchasing energy-efficient products andimprovements, and some still exist. Butagain, the money is provided after-the-fact – as much as a year or more afterthe purchase. I would think moreindividuals would be encouraged to purchase these items if the money wasprovided upfront as a point of purchase discount. Again individuals who want to take advantageof the eventual tax credit may be forced to borrow money to make the qualifyingpurchase, creating more debt.
The“Cash for Clunkers” program of a few years back proves that this can be donerelatively efficiently.
And,as I have said over and over again, the Earned Income Tax Credit, refundableand otherwise, and refundable Child Tax Credit, which, if you call a spade ashovel, are really forms of welfare, would be better distributed via the Aid toFamilies with Dependent Children program – and with substantially less fraud.
Unfortunately,with BO re-elected and the members of Congress being the idiots they are, don’texpect any changes in the current system any time soon.
TTFN
Therehas been a lot of talk lately about “tax expenditures” and the 47% of Americanswho either pay absolutely no federal income tax or actually make a profit byfiling a tax return (thanks to “refundable” tax credits).
Overthe years the idiots in Congress have created a mucking fess of the Tax Code bymaking it the method of delivery for various social welfare benefits and toencourage certain beneficial purchases, which has created the 47%. This is certainly not the best, nor the mostefficient, way to deliver or distribute these benefits – but it is easy. And, as we all know, the idiots in Congressare all for choosing the quickest and easiest way to do things rather thanactually having to sit down and think.
Whilethere are many “tax expenditures” that should be completely done away with,many of the social and societal benefit programs run through the Code areactually good and have merit. But theyshould be delivered and distributed separately out of the budget of theappropriate cabinet department – and not on the 1040.
AsI have posted here before, doing this is much “more better” for many reasons -
(1)It would be easier for the government to verify that the recipient of thesubsidy or hand-out actually qualified for the money, greatly reducing fraud.And tax preparers would no longer need to take on the added responsibility ofhaving to verify if a person qualified for government funds.
(2)The qualifying individual(s) would get the money at the “point of purchase”,when it is really needed, and not have to go “out of pocket” up front and waitto be reimbursed when they file their tax return.
(3)We would be able to calculate the true income tax burden of individuals. Many of the current 47% would still bereceiving government hand-outs, but it would not be tied into the income taxsystem so they would actually be paying federal income tax.
(4)We could measure the true cost of education, housing, health, welfare, etcprograms in the federal budget because the various subsidies would be properlyallocated to the appropriate departments and not be reported as a part of netincome collected via income tax.
(5)The Tax Code would be much less complicated, the cost to the public forpreparing a tax return would be reduced, and the IRS would have much less toprocess and to audit.
Item(2) is a very important one. A major problemwith using the Tax Code to distribute government benefits via tax deductionsand credits is that the benefits are provided “after-the-fact” and not at the “pointof purchase”.
Let’slook at the deductions and credits for tuition and fees. In order to claim these tax benefits thestudent, or more likely his/her parents, must spend the money for tuition andfees and then wait until they file their tax return to get the “studentfinancial aid” from the government.
Thesestudents, and parents, need the money when the tuition and fees are due. If they do not have it at the point ofpurchase they often turn to borrowing, placing themselves further in debt.
Thereis currently in place a process for providing student financial aid at thepoint of purchase. And this aid is basedon student and family income, using information from tax returns. Instead of giving those who qualify a taxdeduction or credit on their Form 1040 a year or more later, why not give thesame benefit, based on the same income formula, as part of the existing studentfinancial aid system. This way thestudent, or parents, gets the money upfront to pay for college expenses or, betteryet, the money is distributed directly to the college - and there is no needfor additional borrowing.
Inthe past there have been credits for purchasing energy-efficient products andimprovements, and some still exist. Butagain, the money is provided after-the-fact – as much as a year or more afterthe purchase. I would think moreindividuals would be encouraged to purchase these items if the money wasprovided upfront as a point of purchase discount. Again individuals who want to take advantageof the eventual tax credit may be forced to borrow money to make the qualifyingpurchase, creating more debt.
The“Cash for Clunkers” program of a few years back proves that this can be donerelatively efficiently.
And,as I have said over and over again, the Earned Income Tax Credit, refundableand otherwise, and refundable Child Tax Credit, which, if you call a spade ashovel, are really forms of welfare, would be better distributed via the Aid toFamilies with Dependent Children program – and with substantially less fraud.
Unfortunately,with BO re-elected and the members of Congress being the idiots they are, don’texpect any changes in the current system any time soon.
TTFN
GIT 'ER DONE!
To contact us Click HERE
Itis almost December. When dealing withthe potential “fiscal cliff”, now is not the time to consider long-termissues.
Thefirst, and most important, thing to do ASAP is to extend the AMT patch throughthe end of 2012 (or, more better, through the end of 2013) so that theprocessing of 2012 tax returns and refunds are not delayed, and middle classtaxpayers are not hit with possible tax increases of between $3,000 and $4,000.
Thesecond thing to do is to extend all of the various tax benefits that willexpire on December 31, 2012, for one more year (through the end of 2013), andperhaps also the various popular “extenders” that expired on 12/31/11 alongwith the AMT patch (except for the 2% Social Security reduction). The reason for doing this is so that we do notbegin 2013 with uncertainty concerning proper withholding.
Thetime for considering serious long-term tax reform is January 2013, when the newCongress (which is really not that new) convenes. This is when legislators should beconsidering whether to do away with or limit various tax loopholes andexpenditures, and whether to raise or lower tax rates – while there is almost afull year before any tax legislation must be passed (not that they should waituntil the last minute, as has become the custom).
Congresshas wasted away 2012, and must be made aware that their actions, or ratherinactions, have consequences. They must putaside ridiculous partisan battling and consider the American people for achange.
TTFN
Itis almost December. When dealing withthe potential “fiscal cliff”, now is not the time to consider long-termissues.
Thefirst, and most important, thing to do ASAP is to extend the AMT patch throughthe end of 2012 (or, more better, through the end of 2013) so that theprocessing of 2012 tax returns and refunds are not delayed, and middle classtaxpayers are not hit with possible tax increases of between $3,000 and $4,000.
Thesecond thing to do is to extend all of the various tax benefits that willexpire on December 31, 2012, for one more year (through the end of 2013), andperhaps also the various popular “extenders” that expired on 12/31/11 alongwith the AMT patch (except for the 2% Social Security reduction). The reason for doing this is so that we do notbegin 2013 with uncertainty concerning proper withholding.
Thetime for considering serious long-term tax reform is January 2013, when the newCongress (which is really not that new) convenes. This is when legislators should beconsidering whether to do away with or limit various tax loopholes andexpenditures, and whether to raise or lower tax rates – while there is almost afull year before any tax legislation must be passed (not that they should waituntil the last minute, as has become the custom).
Congresshas wasted away 2012, and must be made aware that their actions, or ratherinactions, have consequences. They must putaside ridiculous partisan battling and consider the American people for achange.
TTFN
I'm married to a US Citizen -- What Happens Next?
To contact us Click HERE
Marriage is a wonderful thing -- but how does it effect immigration law? Legal status? LPR (legal permanent resident or lawful permanent resident) and work status (EAD -- employment authorization documentation)?
It is important to remember that immigration is roughly divided into to sections -- innies and outties. Alright, perhaps the simplistic description is misplaced here, but the concept is the same. Are you inside the country, or outside the country? If you are outside the country, the process is I129F, I130, K3 (spouse). If you are inside the country, the process is I130, I485, and if illegal, I601 (waiver/hardship -- tricky here, as there are proposed rules changes with the 601/601A).
What are all these "I" forms, and what do they do?
First, "I" stands for "Immigration" and designates a type of government form related to USCIS (United States Customs and Immigration Service). You will occasionally also see EOIR forms (Executive Office of Immigration Review -- that's the immigration court), and DHS (Department of Homeland Security) or DS (Department of State) forms. However, for today's discussion, we're only focusing on "I" forms.
The I130 is arguably the most important form of the "spousal" immigration group. It notifies USCIS that a US citizen or LPR (green-card holder)has a family member (in this case, his/her spouse) that is eligible for entry into the US. By itself, the I130 does nothing. However, without the document, nothing else can be done to convert a non-immigrant status to an immigrant (i.e. wants to stay permanently) status.
An I129F is filed to request that a foreign national, currently outside of the United States, be granted a "K" visa. K visas permit finances (K1), family members (K2), and spouses (K3) entry into the United States for a set duration (in the case of a K3, the amount of time is 2 years, and includes permission to file an I765 once in the country to permit work). An actual "K" visa is not a form. It is a stamp/processing placed inside the foreign national's passport indicate the type of entry permitted. The form required is the I129F (F = Fiance, however, it is used for K2/K3 visas, also) filed by the US citizen/LPR. Once approved by USCIS, it is forwarded to the consulate in the area where the fiance/family member/spouse resides, and the fiance/family member/spouse can then contact the consulate to setup and interview and background check. Once they complete the interview and background check, the family member/fiance/spouse's passport is stamped, and they may enter the US under the immigrant visa classification "K".
Next blog will discuss the "in country" (innies!) processing of family members/fiances/spouses.
Have an immigration law question? Ask us! This is something we do everyday. From simple phone discussions to complex immigration court litigation. We're here to help -- and your first call is always free.
Sean R. Hanover, Esq
HanoverLawPC.com
Contact UsVisit the Hanover Law firm at www.hanoverlawpc.com
It is important to remember that immigration is roughly divided into to sections -- innies and outties. Alright, perhaps the simplistic description is misplaced here, but the concept is the same. Are you inside the country, or outside the country? If you are outside the country, the process is I129F, I130, K3 (spouse). If you are inside the country, the process is I130, I485, and if illegal, I601 (waiver/hardship -- tricky here, as there are proposed rules changes with the 601/601A).
What are all these "I" forms, and what do they do?
First, "I" stands for "Immigration" and designates a type of government form related to USCIS (United States Customs and Immigration Service). You will occasionally also see EOIR forms (Executive Office of Immigration Review -- that's the immigration court), and DHS (Department of Homeland Security) or DS (Department of State) forms. However, for today's discussion, we're only focusing on "I" forms.
The I130 is arguably the most important form of the "spousal" immigration group. It notifies USCIS that a US citizen or LPR (green-card holder)has a family member (in this case, his/her spouse) that is eligible for entry into the US. By itself, the I130 does nothing. However, without the document, nothing else can be done to convert a non-immigrant status to an immigrant (i.e. wants to stay permanently) status.
An I129F is filed to request that a foreign national, currently outside of the United States, be granted a "K" visa. K visas permit finances (K1), family members (K2), and spouses (K3) entry into the United States for a set duration (in the case of a K3, the amount of time is 2 years, and includes permission to file an I765 once in the country to permit work). An actual "K" visa is not a form. It is a stamp/processing placed inside the foreign national's passport indicate the type of entry permitted. The form required is the I129F (F = Fiance, however, it is used for K2/K3 visas, also) filed by the US citizen/LPR. Once approved by USCIS, it is forwarded to the consulate in the area where the fiance/family member/spouse resides, and the fiance/family member/spouse can then contact the consulate to setup and interview and background check. Once they complete the interview and background check, the family member/fiance/spouse's passport is stamped, and they may enter the US under the immigrant visa classification "K".
Next blog will discuss the "in country" (innies!) processing of family members/fiances/spouses.
Have an immigration law question? Ask us! This is something we do everyday. From simple phone discussions to complex immigration court litigation. We're here to help -- and your first call is always free.
Sean R. Hanover, Esq
HanoverLawPC.com
Contact UsVisit the Hanover Law firm at www.hanoverlawpc.com
27 Kasım 2012 Salı
I'm married to a US Citizen -- What Happens Next?
To contact us Click HERE
Marriage is a wonderful thing -- but how does it effect immigration law? Legal status? LPR (legal permanent resident or lawful permanent resident) and work status (EAD -- employment authorization documentation)?
It is important to remember that immigration is roughly divided into to sections -- innies and outties. Alright, perhaps the simplistic description is misplaced here, but the concept is the same. Are you inside the country, or outside the country? If you are outside the country, the process is I129F, I130, K3 (spouse). If you are inside the country, the process is I130, I485, and if illegal, I601 (waiver/hardship -- tricky here, as there are proposed rules changes with the 601/601A).
What are all these "I" forms, and what do they do?
First, "I" stands for "Immigration" and designates a type of government form related to USCIS (United States Customs and Immigration Service). You will occasionally also see EOIR forms (Executive Office of Immigration Review -- that's the immigration court), and DHS (Department of Homeland Security) or DS (Department of State) forms. However, for today's discussion, we're only focusing on "I" forms.
The I130 is arguably the most important form of the "spousal" immigration group. It notifies USCIS that a US citizen or LPR (green-card holder)has a family member (in this case, his/her spouse) that is eligible for entry into the US. By itself, the I130 does nothing. However, without the document, nothing else can be done to convert a non-immigrant status to an immigrant (i.e. wants to stay permanently) status.
An I129F is filed to request that a foreign national, currently outside of the United States, be granted a "K" visa. K visas permit finances (K1), family members (K2), and spouses (K3) entry into the United States for a set duration (in the case of a K3, the amount of time is 2 years, and includes permission to file an I765 once in the country to permit work). An actual "K" visa is not a form. It is a stamp/processing placed inside the foreign national's passport indicate the type of entry permitted. The form required is the I129F (F = Fiance, however, it is used for K2/K3 visas, also) filed by the US citizen/LPR. Once approved by USCIS, it is forwarded to the consulate in the area where the fiance/family member/spouse resides, and the fiance/family member/spouse can then contact the consulate to setup and interview and background check. Once they complete the interview and background check, the family member/fiance/spouse's passport is stamped, and they may enter the US under the immigrant visa classification "K".
Next blog will discuss the "in country" (innies!) processing of family members/fiances/spouses.
Have an immigration law question? Ask us! This is something we do everyday. From simple phone discussions to complex immigration court litigation. We're here to help -- and your first call is always free.
Sean R. Hanover, Esq
HanoverLawPC.com
Contact UsVisit the Hanover Law firm at www.hanoverlawpc.com
It is important to remember that immigration is roughly divided into to sections -- innies and outties. Alright, perhaps the simplistic description is misplaced here, but the concept is the same. Are you inside the country, or outside the country? If you are outside the country, the process is I129F, I130, K3 (spouse). If you are inside the country, the process is I130, I485, and if illegal, I601 (waiver/hardship -- tricky here, as there are proposed rules changes with the 601/601A).
What are all these "I" forms, and what do they do?
First, "I" stands for "Immigration" and designates a type of government form related to USCIS (United States Customs and Immigration Service). You will occasionally also see EOIR forms (Executive Office of Immigration Review -- that's the immigration court), and DHS (Department of Homeland Security) or DS (Department of State) forms. However, for today's discussion, we're only focusing on "I" forms.
The I130 is arguably the most important form of the "spousal" immigration group. It notifies USCIS that a US citizen or LPR (green-card holder)has a family member (in this case, his/her spouse) that is eligible for entry into the US. By itself, the I130 does nothing. However, without the document, nothing else can be done to convert a non-immigrant status to an immigrant (i.e. wants to stay permanently) status.
An I129F is filed to request that a foreign national, currently outside of the United States, be granted a "K" visa. K visas permit finances (K1), family members (K2), and spouses (K3) entry into the United States for a set duration (in the case of a K3, the amount of time is 2 years, and includes permission to file an I765 once in the country to permit work). An actual "K" visa is not a form. It is a stamp/processing placed inside the foreign national's passport indicate the type of entry permitted. The form required is the I129F (F = Fiance, however, it is used for K2/K3 visas, also) filed by the US citizen/LPR. Once approved by USCIS, it is forwarded to the consulate in the area where the fiance/family member/spouse resides, and the fiance/family member/spouse can then contact the consulate to setup and interview and background check. Once they complete the interview and background check, the family member/fiance/spouse's passport is stamped, and they may enter the US under the immigrant visa classification "K".
Next blog will discuss the "in country" (innies!) processing of family members/fiances/spouses.
Have an immigration law question? Ask us! This is something we do everyday. From simple phone discussions to complex immigration court litigation. We're here to help -- and your first call is always free.
Sean R. Hanover, Esq
HanoverLawPC.com
Contact UsVisit the Hanover Law firm at www.hanoverlawpc.com
LET'S DO SOMETHING RIGHT FOR A CHANGE
To contact us Click HERE
Therehas been a lot of talk lately about “tax expenditures” and the 47% of Americanswho either pay absolutely no federal income tax or actually make a profit byfiling a tax return (thanks to “refundable” tax credits).
Overthe years the idiots in Congress have created a mucking fess of the Tax Code bymaking it the method of delivery for various social welfare benefits and toencourage certain beneficial purchases, which has created the 47%. This is certainly not the best, nor the mostefficient, way to deliver or distribute these benefits – but it is easy. And, as we all know, the idiots in Congressare all for choosing the quickest and easiest way to do things rather thanactually having to sit down and think.
Whilethere are many “tax expenditures” that should be completely done away with,many of the social and societal benefit programs run through the Code areactually good and have merit. But theyshould be delivered and distributed separately out of the budget of theappropriate cabinet department – and not on the 1040.
AsI have posted here before, doing this is much “more better” for many reasons -
(1)It would be easier for the government to verify that the recipient of thesubsidy or hand-out actually qualified for the money, greatly reducing fraud.And tax preparers would no longer need to take on the added responsibility ofhaving to verify if a person qualified for government funds.
(2)The qualifying individual(s) would get the money at the “point of purchase”,when it is really needed, and not have to go “out of pocket” up front and waitto be reimbursed when they file their tax return.
(3)We would be able to calculate the true income tax burden of individuals. Many of the current 47% would still bereceiving government hand-outs, but it would not be tied into the income taxsystem so they would actually be paying federal income tax.
(4)We could measure the true cost of education, housing, health, welfare, etcprograms in the federal budget because the various subsidies would be properlyallocated to the appropriate departments and not be reported as a part of netincome collected via income tax.
(5)The Tax Code would be much less complicated, the cost to the public forpreparing a tax return would be reduced, and the IRS would have much less toprocess and to audit.
Item(2) is a very important one. A major problemwith using the Tax Code to distribute government benefits via tax deductionsand credits is that the benefits are provided “after-the-fact” and not at the “pointof purchase”.
Let’slook at the deductions and credits for tuition and fees. In order to claim these tax benefits thestudent, or more likely his/her parents, must spend the money for tuition andfees and then wait until they file their tax return to get the “studentfinancial aid” from the government.
Thesestudents, and parents, need the money when the tuition and fees are due. If they do not have it at the point ofpurchase they often turn to borrowing, placing themselves further in debt.
Thereis currently in place a process for providing student financial aid at thepoint of purchase. And this aid is basedon student and family income, using information from tax returns. Instead of giving those who qualify a taxdeduction or credit on their Form 1040 a year or more later, why not give thesame benefit, based on the same income formula, as part of the existing studentfinancial aid system. This way thestudent, or parents, gets the money upfront to pay for college expenses or, betteryet, the money is distributed directly to the college - and there is no needfor additional borrowing.
Inthe past there have been credits for purchasing energy-efficient products andimprovements, and some still exist. Butagain, the money is provided after-the-fact – as much as a year or more afterthe purchase. I would think moreindividuals would be encouraged to purchase these items if the money wasprovided upfront as a point of purchase discount. Again individuals who want to take advantageof the eventual tax credit may be forced to borrow money to make the qualifyingpurchase, creating more debt.
The“Cash for Clunkers” program of a few years back proves that this can be donerelatively efficiently.
And,as I have said over and over again, the Earned Income Tax Credit, refundableand otherwise, and refundable Child Tax Credit, which, if you call a spade ashovel, are really forms of welfare, would be better distributed via the Aid toFamilies with Dependent Children program – and with substantially less fraud.
Unfortunately,with BO re-elected and the members of Congress being the idiots they are, don’texpect any changes in the current system any time soon.
TTFN
Therehas been a lot of talk lately about “tax expenditures” and the 47% of Americanswho either pay absolutely no federal income tax or actually make a profit byfiling a tax return (thanks to “refundable” tax credits).
Overthe years the idiots in Congress have created a mucking fess of the Tax Code bymaking it the method of delivery for various social welfare benefits and toencourage certain beneficial purchases, which has created the 47%. This is certainly not the best, nor the mostefficient, way to deliver or distribute these benefits – but it is easy. And, as we all know, the idiots in Congressare all for choosing the quickest and easiest way to do things rather thanactually having to sit down and think.
Whilethere are many “tax expenditures” that should be completely done away with,many of the social and societal benefit programs run through the Code areactually good and have merit. But theyshould be delivered and distributed separately out of the budget of theappropriate cabinet department – and not on the 1040.
AsI have posted here before, doing this is much “more better” for many reasons -
(1)It would be easier for the government to verify that the recipient of thesubsidy or hand-out actually qualified for the money, greatly reducing fraud.And tax preparers would no longer need to take on the added responsibility ofhaving to verify if a person qualified for government funds.
(2)The qualifying individual(s) would get the money at the “point of purchase”,when it is really needed, and not have to go “out of pocket” up front and waitto be reimbursed when they file their tax return.
(3)We would be able to calculate the true income tax burden of individuals. Many of the current 47% would still bereceiving government hand-outs, but it would not be tied into the income taxsystem so they would actually be paying federal income tax.
(4)We could measure the true cost of education, housing, health, welfare, etcprograms in the federal budget because the various subsidies would be properlyallocated to the appropriate departments and not be reported as a part of netincome collected via income tax.
(5)The Tax Code would be much less complicated, the cost to the public forpreparing a tax return would be reduced, and the IRS would have much less toprocess and to audit.
Item(2) is a very important one. A major problemwith using the Tax Code to distribute government benefits via tax deductionsand credits is that the benefits are provided “after-the-fact” and not at the “pointof purchase”.
Let’slook at the deductions and credits for tuition and fees. In order to claim these tax benefits thestudent, or more likely his/her parents, must spend the money for tuition andfees and then wait until they file their tax return to get the “studentfinancial aid” from the government.
Thesestudents, and parents, need the money when the tuition and fees are due. If they do not have it at the point ofpurchase they often turn to borrowing, placing themselves further in debt.
Thereis currently in place a process for providing student financial aid at thepoint of purchase. And this aid is basedon student and family income, using information from tax returns. Instead of giving those who qualify a taxdeduction or credit on their Form 1040 a year or more later, why not give thesame benefit, based on the same income formula, as part of the existing studentfinancial aid system. This way thestudent, or parents, gets the money upfront to pay for college expenses or, betteryet, the money is distributed directly to the college - and there is no needfor additional borrowing.
Inthe past there have been credits for purchasing energy-efficient products andimprovements, and some still exist. Butagain, the money is provided after-the-fact – as much as a year or more afterthe purchase. I would think moreindividuals would be encouraged to purchase these items if the money wasprovided upfront as a point of purchase discount. Again individuals who want to take advantageof the eventual tax credit may be forced to borrow money to make the qualifyingpurchase, creating more debt.
The“Cash for Clunkers” program of a few years back proves that this can be donerelatively efficiently.
And,as I have said over and over again, the Earned Income Tax Credit, refundableand otherwise, and refundable Child Tax Credit, which, if you call a spade ashovel, are really forms of welfare, would be better distributed via the Aid toFamilies with Dependent Children program – and with substantially less fraud.
Unfortunately,with BO re-elected and the members of Congress being the idiots they are, don’texpect any changes in the current system any time soon.
TTFN
GIT 'ER DONE!
To contact us Click HERE
Itis almost December. When dealing withthe potential “fiscal cliff”, now is not the time to consider long-termissues.
Thefirst, and most important, thing to do ASAP is to extend the AMT patch throughthe end of 2012 (or, more better, through the end of 2013) so that theprocessing of 2012 tax returns and refunds are not delayed, and middle classtaxpayers are not hit with possible tax increases of between $3,000 and $4,000.
Thesecond thing to do is to extend all of the various tax benefits that willexpire on December 31, 2012, for one more year (through the end of 2013), andperhaps also the various popular “extenders” that expired on 12/31/11 alongwith the AMT patch (except for the 2% Social Security reduction). The reason for doing this is so that we do notbegin 2013 with uncertainty concerning proper withholding.
Thetime for considering serious long-term tax reform is January 2013, when the newCongress (which is really not that new) convenes. This is when legislators should beconsidering whether to do away with or limit various tax loopholes andexpenditures, and whether to raise or lower tax rates – while there is almost afull year before any tax legislation must be passed (not that they should waituntil the last minute, as has become the custom).
Congresshas wasted away 2012, and must be made aware that their actions, or ratherinactions, have consequences. They must putaside ridiculous partisan battling and consider the American people for achange.
TTFN
Itis almost December. When dealing withthe potential “fiscal cliff”, now is not the time to consider long-termissues.
Thefirst, and most important, thing to do ASAP is to extend the AMT patch throughthe end of 2012 (or, more better, through the end of 2013) so that theprocessing of 2012 tax returns and refunds are not delayed, and middle classtaxpayers are not hit with possible tax increases of between $3,000 and $4,000.
Thesecond thing to do is to extend all of the various tax benefits that willexpire on December 31, 2012, for one more year (through the end of 2013), andperhaps also the various popular “extenders” that expired on 12/31/11 alongwith the AMT patch (except for the 2% Social Security reduction). The reason for doing this is so that we do notbegin 2013 with uncertainty concerning proper withholding.
Thetime for considering serious long-term tax reform is January 2013, when the newCongress (which is really not that new) convenes. This is when legislators should beconsidering whether to do away with or limit various tax loopholes andexpenditures, and whether to raise or lower tax rates – while there is almost afull year before any tax legislation must be passed (not that they should waituntil the last minute, as has become the custom).
Congresshas wasted away 2012, and must be made aware that their actions, or ratherinactions, have consequences. They must putaside ridiculous partisan battling and consider the American people for achange.
TTFN
Appeals Court Rejects Golfer's Suit
To contact us Click HERE
A golfer who lost an eye sued after being struck by an errant shot. the New York State Court of Appeals says not yelling "fore" wasn't reckless act. The highest court in New York held: "Here, Kapoor's failure to warn of his intent to strike the ball did not amount to intentional or reckless conduct, and did not unreasonably increase the risks inherent in golf to which Anand consented. Rather, the manner in which Anand was injured -- being hit without warning by a "shanked" shot while one searches for one's own ball -- reflects a commonly appreciated risk of golf"
To read the entire opinion (it is very short) click on: Azad Anand, et al., Appellants, v. Anoop Kapoor.
The bottom-line for the Court was that there are certain inherent risks when one chooses to participate in a sporting activity and by that participation consents to these risks. Absent a finding of reckless or intentional conduct on the part of the defendant there can be no liability.
Sometimes bad things happen to good people and there is no one to blame.
A golfer who lost an eye sued after being struck by an errant shot. the New York State Court of Appeals says not yelling "fore" wasn't reckless act. The highest court in New York held: "Here, Kapoor's failure to warn of his intent to strike the ball did not amount to intentional or reckless conduct, and did not unreasonably increase the risks inherent in golf to which Anand consented. Rather, the manner in which Anand was injured -- being hit without warning by a "shanked" shot while one searches for one's own ball -- reflects a commonly appreciated risk of golf" To read the entire opinion (it is very short) click on: Azad Anand, et al., Appellants, v. Anoop Kapoor.
The bottom-line for the Court was that there are certain inherent risks when one chooses to participate in a sporting activity and by that participation consents to these risks. Absent a finding of reckless or intentional conduct on the part of the defendant there can be no liability.
Sometimes bad things happen to good people and there is no one to blame.
New York Mechanic's Lien
To contact us Click HERE
This is a quickreference guide for common questions that come up regarding mechanic's liens inNew York. For specific inquiries please feel free to contact one of the attorneys in our offices.
1. Who Can File A Mechanic's Lien?
In general, anyone performing labor or furnishing materials for the improvementof real property may file a mechanic's lien when the labor or materials wererequested by the owner or its agent. It should go without saying that the liencan only be filed if money is owed. Some typical lienors are contractors,subcontractors, suppliers, architects, engineers and in some cases constructionmanagers.
2. How Long Do I Have To File A Lien?
A lien filed against a residential single family private dwelling must be filedwithin four months of the last performance of labor or furnishment ofmaterials. A lien filed against any other private property must be filed withineight months after the completion of the contract, or the final performance ofthe work, or the final furnishing of the materials.
3. How Long Does My Mechanic's Lien Last?
The lien is valid for one year. After that you must take steps to extend thelien. If not extended or foreclosed upon, the lien will expire by operation oflaw.
4. How Do I Foreclose on a Mechanic's Lien?
Foreclosing on a mechanic's lien is a fairly complicated process that involvesfiling a formal lawsuit. There are specific people that must be included in thelawsuit and other specific requirements that justify retaining an attorney tohandle the foreclosure.
5. What Do I Do If I Am Served With A Mechanic's Lien?
You have three options: 1) bond the lien; 2) commence legal proceedings todischarge the lien; or 3) do nothing (not recommend under most circumstances).For bonding the lien or attempting to discharge the lien through the courtsystems it is strongly recommended that you consult with an attorney.
6. What Happens If I File A Lien That Is Not Accurate?
This is really a two part problem. First of all, a lien that is defective onits face (meaning in the actual terms set forth in the lien) can be summarilydischarged and will not protect you. Second, filing an improper lien can exposeyou to liability, especially in the case of a "willfully exaggeratedlien" where you are subject to treble damages and attorneys’ fees beingawarded against you.
This is a quickreference guide for common questions that come up regarding mechanic's liens inNew York. For specific inquiries please feel free to contact one of the attorneys in our offices.
1. Who Can File A Mechanic's Lien?
In general, anyone performing labor or furnishing materials for the improvementof real property may file a mechanic's lien when the labor or materials wererequested by the owner or its agent. It should go without saying that the liencan only be filed if money is owed. Some typical lienors are contractors,subcontractors, suppliers, architects, engineers and in some cases constructionmanagers.
2. How Long Do I Have To File A Lien?
A lien filed against a residential single family private dwelling must be filedwithin four months of the last performance of labor or furnishment ofmaterials. A lien filed against any other private property must be filed withineight months after the completion of the contract, or the final performance ofthe work, or the final furnishing of the materials.
3. How Long Does My Mechanic's Lien Last?
The lien is valid for one year. After that you must take steps to extend thelien. If not extended or foreclosed upon, the lien will expire by operation oflaw.
4. How Do I Foreclose on a Mechanic's Lien?
Foreclosing on a mechanic's lien is a fairly complicated process that involvesfiling a formal lawsuit. There are specific people that must be included in thelawsuit and other specific requirements that justify retaining an attorney tohandle the foreclosure.
5. What Do I Do If I Am Served With A Mechanic's Lien?
You have three options: 1) bond the lien; 2) commence legal proceedings todischarge the lien; or 3) do nothing (not recommend under most circumstances).For bonding the lien or attempting to discharge the lien through the courtsystems it is strongly recommended that you consult with an attorney.
6. What Happens If I File A Lien That Is Not Accurate?
This is really a two part problem. First of all, a lien that is defective onits face (meaning in the actual terms set forth in the lien) can be summarilydischarged and will not protect you. Second, filing an improper lien can exposeyou to liability, especially in the case of a "willfully exaggeratedlien" where you are subject to treble damages and attorneys’ fees beingawarded against you.
Kaydol:
Yorumlar (Atom)