ForumTitleContentMemberSexCountryDate/Time
Canadarenewing canadian passport?
There is a different form to fill out if you are living outside Canada or residing in Canada. Fill out the one you need, because the main difference is who can vouch for your photographs (the guarantor list is different).

If you are back in Canada, and can drop it off at an office and pay the fees, it can take a couple weeks or less. Otherwise, you have to mail it off, and it can be gone awhile (I think mine was close to 2 months). The bottom line is that you send your old passport off, so there is a period where you will not have your passport and thus cannot travel via airplanes out of the US. I remember I took mine in person in Ontario, thinking it would be quick, but they couldn't guarantee it within the week, and I needed to fly home at the end of the week, so I was out of luck.

Sending off the old passport/leaving you a period without a passport isn't a very good system, but that is what they were still operating off of early last year.
pixiegunnFemaleCanada2008-12-07 09:36:00
Removing Conditions on Residency General DiscussionCan I travel while pending for I-751?
It depends what your stamp says....if it says it is a 'temporary I-551' like I got, the I-551 is your green card. When I went to an infopass appointment to get the stamp to extend my card, they also took my card, so all I have is the stamp in my passport. If it is that stamp, you are supposedly fine to travel, as it equates a 'temporary green card.'

One person on here had his stamped passport expire, and still just had to travel with the old passport (with the stamp) and the new passport (without) and didn't have any trouble.
pixiegunnFemaleCanada2007-01-13 09:17:00
Removing Conditions on Residency General DiscussionBiometrics DC
I paid the $205 as well, and went for my biometrics yesterday. I didn't pay anything additional, but brought my chequebook just in case! No money was taken from anyone at the biometrics office in Boston (most were getting it done for the citizenship test).
pixiegunnFemaleCanada2007-01-21 22:01:00
Removing Conditions on Residency General DiscussionTravel with expired GC
If you get the NOA, you don't need the stamp. The stamp is for people who don't receive the NOA before their card expires. In fact, when I got my stamp as my card was expiring, they took my green card....so now I only have the stamp, and the paper NOA is useless (no card to go with it). There are many many people who have travelled and had no problem :)

~Pixie
pixiegunnFemaleCanada2007-01-13 09:12:00
Removing Conditions on Residency General Discussionhow to geT I551 stamp
You only need one or the other: either your expired green card with the NOA paper extension OR the I-551 stamp in a passport. When I went they were turning away people who had the NOA letter but wanted the stamp as well. It's redundant to have both because they mean the same thing. You're 'good to go' as long as you received your NOA saying your status is 'extended by a year'.
pixiegunnFemaleCanada2007-01-26 22:32:00
Removing Conditions on Residency General DiscussionWondering about fingerprinting....
Sharon,

I don't post meaning to make you worry, but just my experience: I did it in Boston, and they did ask to see everyone's hands (I didn't see anyone turned away, and there were alot of people) but they did biometrics for every finger.

I'm sure you'll be fine. I imagine there are quite a number of people in similar situations where they work with their hands and need biometrics done one way or another!

~Pixie
pixiegunnFemaleCanada2007-02-12 19:07:00
Removing Conditions on Residency General DiscussionCSC ROCKS - I-751 APPROVED 10 year card
Congrats Sleepless! You clearly pulled ahead in the race!

I am very, truly, thoroughly happily for you.
pixiegunnFemaleCanada2007-03-26 19:46:00
Removing Conditions on Residency General DiscussionWaiting List
Fisrt I am waiting for NOA and then what?
When is the biometric an appoiment ?
When and how we get the I-551 stamp.
Which dovument exactly gives us the extention for one more year.

If you get your NOA before your green card expires, you are fine--the ideal situation is you get your NOA, and soon thereafter comes the letter telling you to go to biometrics. The NOA with your green card is your proof of extension for one year.

It is only if you do NOT receive an NOA before your green card expires that you need to get the I-551 stamp. The I-551 stamp becomes your 'green card' and they can take the expired green card from you. You would need to make an Infopass appointment on their website to go to a local office and get it. To get it, you would bring your expired card as well as some proof you had submitted paperwork (a copy of your paperwork that you filed, post office receipts, the cancelled cheque etc.)

You only need one: either the NOA giving you an extension, OR the I-551 stamp.

Good luck!
pixiegunnFemaleCanada2007-02-23 06:22:00
Removing Conditions on Residency General DiscussionWaiting List
Several big updates for me, all of a sudden VSC moved quickly:

Alchemist- 06/12/06 filed to Vermont- NOA 8/20 - received stamp I-551 on 10/13/06
Lou lou - 08/20/06 file to Vermont - NOA 10/18
Sanaz - 08/21/06 filed to Vermont - NOA 08/27/06
Amfrisco - 8/22/06 filed to vermont - Received I-551 stamp in Newark 10/19/06 - NOA Came Today 11/01/06!!!! The receipt date is 10/26/06
Melissa - 08/29/06 file to Vermont (no NOA yet) - 10/11/06 - Received I-551 stamp from Boston
Kamitoz - 09/08/06 filed to California - NOA 09/26/06
Jessica.randen - 9/09/2006 filed to Vermont - NOA 11/09/06
Brokenheart - 09/25/2006 no Noa yet
Flames9 - 09/25/06 filed I-751 to Vermont - NOA 11/09/06
Tata - 09/28/06 filed to Vermont (no NOA yet)
Jsassman 10/18/06 filed to Nebraska - NOA 11/08/06, with date of 11/03 and biometrics appointment for 11/20/06 in Omaha.
Xbox - 11/03/06 filed to Nebraska (no NOA yet)
Cristina : 10-12-06 filing date Texas NOA1 10-20-06 Biometrics appointment : 12-07-06 NOA2 : waiting.... Through VSC:

Pixiegunn 11/27/06 filed to Vermont; I-551 stamp received 01/08/07; NOA recieved 01/10/07 (dated 12/21/06); biometrics scheduled 01/20/07 (dated 01/05/07)
pixiegunnFemaleCanada2007-01-12 18:59:00
Removing Conditions on Residency General DiscussionWaiting List
Can I join the list?

Through VSC:

Mailed 11/27
Received 11/29
Cheque cashed 12/1
No NOA to date
Infopass scheduled 1/8/07 (my card expires on the 9th) if I don't get an NOA by then
pixiegunnFemaleCanada2007-01-03 21:07:00
Removing Conditions on Residency General DiscussionCard production ordered!
Man oh man Atlantis! Congratulations!

You finally got a break and immigration let you pull ahead of me! That was really fast! Hope the card itself is uneventful and accurate!
pixiegunnFemaleCanada2007-05-19 06:35:00
Removing Conditions on Residency General DiscussionI-751 at VSC
(Edited because I thought I fell in that period, but I don't! I actually didn't know my NOA was dated so late when I filed in November!!)

No word at all. I'll let you know when I do though, that's for sure! I'm pretty anxious with only an almost-expired passport as my link to both Canada & the US, and want a new PR card quickly!! Good luck to you!

Edited by pixiegunn, 21 May 2007 - 07:47 PM.

pixiegunnFemaleCanada2007-05-21 19:45:00
Removing Conditions on Residency General Discussiondo i have enough evidence?
Just regarding the notarized bit:

We didn't send any friend/family letters, just one from our landlord because we did not have a current lease. It wasn't notarized, and in our case, we just found out we were approved without any setbacks.

As far as I know, though, notarization can be done at most (all?) banks though, so if you need to have it done, you could try there. That's what we did for our I-130's back in the day.
pixiegunnFemaleCanada2007-06-12 20:27:00
Removing Conditions on Residency General DiscussionApproved as well!
Hey everyone!

Joining the crew that has recently had their VSC application approved! I received my card in the mail today, no errors (although I can't believe they used the pictures they took at the biometrics appointment -- smiling!! -- rather than the 'good' and grim ones I paid for and mailed in with my application!) NOA was Dec 21 (? look in my timeline!) so it's just under 6 months for me.

Happy filing! Hope others waits are over soon.
~Nicole
pixiegunnFemaleCanada2007-06-18 20:23:00
Removing Conditions on Residency General Discussioncalling all june 2oo7 filers..
Every place is very different....the one I was sent to in Boston had in my ASC letter that I could reschedule by mailing it back, for either a Wednesday afternoon or a Saturday morning. From the sounds of it, some other agencies are just drop-ins/open all week.
pixiegunnFemaleCanada2007-06-23 08:36:00
Removing Conditions on Residency General Discussioncalling all june 2oo7 filers..
Mine was on a Saturday in Boston. If I recall, they only had two days they did it, Saturday or Wednesday.
pixiegunnFemaleCanada2007-06-21 19:12:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
QUOTE (pushbrk @ Aug 10 2009, 01:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Congratulations. Please update your profile, as you must have obtained CR1 and CR2 visas with I-864 forms. K3 and K4 use the I-134.


Thanks. And just did change it. We originally were going for those visas, but then within 2 weeks we found out they (my wife and stepkid) could go for CR-1/CR-2 visas, so we decided to wait another month and do that, but I never changed our profile here.


Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-08-16 20:07:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
Just to update everyone on this thread.

Upon consulting with my wife and someone willing to step forward as a cosponsor, we filed the cosponsor I-864s with Moscow. On 8/7, my wife received the visas for her and my stepdaughter and we are now finalizing plans for them to come here to the US.

In the meantime, I've received responses from the NVC and USCIS concerning my inquiries. I don't have time to get into them now, but essentially, all parties passed the buck to the consulate, who then passes the buck back by saying that they're only following the guidelines given them.

Catch-22, anyone?

We may pursue this further. Or others on this board may wish to take this up. I think it's worth pursuing and a lot of people are being hurt by the current interpretation of the rule and I hope a reasonable solution can be found.

In the meantime, I want to wish everyone here the best of luck in this long and maddening process and I thank everyone for their opinions and insights and apologize if I came off a bit cranky. We all know that being without our loved ones can do that to a person.

Cheers!
Steve
Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-08-09 21:14:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
An update for folks.

I did a lot of digging and found this:

This issue (the definition of income/deductions for self-employed people) was addressed and a ruling issued in [Federal Register: June 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 119)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 35731-35757]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr21jn06-27] on either page 35739 or 35740 of the Register.

The ruling/commentary was as follows:

Finally, one commenter believed that, for self-employed persons, the sponsor's income should be taken from line 7 of Schedule C to IRS Form 1040. That is to say, the self-employed sponsor's income should be the gross receipts of the person's business, minus the cost of goods sold, but without subtracting legitimate deductions the sponsor has taken.

USCIS cannot adopt this suggestion. The focus of concern is the sponsor's ability to provide the necessary support to the intending immigrant(s). Money paid for expenses included in part II of Schedule C is not available for this purpose. Moreover, it is the amount of income after deduction of expenses that is carried over from Schedule C to the Form 1040 itself.

Consequently, the final rule retains the original definition of income, but clarifies that total income means the entry for total income shown on the appropriate line of the relevant Federal individual income tax return, IRS Form 1040, 1040A, or 1040EZ, not the preliminary calculation of gross income on Schedule C. The final rule also tracks the language on IRS Forms 1040 and 1040A by using the term ``total income'' rather than ``gross income'' in relation to those forms, and the term ``adjusted gross income'' in relation to Form 1040EZ.

So Push and G&A, you were correct and I was not as to the official interpretation.

But that's not to say that the interpretation itself is correct. I have sent an email to USCIS challenging this policy.

First, G&A, it says explicitly that "the focus of concern is the sponsor's ability to provide the necessary support to the intending immigrant(s)" and that the I-864 helps to ensure that goal is met. Hang onto this thought.

"Money paid for expenses included in part II of Schedule C is not available for this purpose." This is where there's a meltdown in logic.

You're all sick of the example I gave about the auto/mileage deduction, but the fact remains that the mileage deduction is not paid back on a 1/1 basis. Quite the contrary, for every $2.50 I spend for a gallon of gas , I get a corresponding $13.75 or so writeoff. And every 3,000 miles or so, $15 for an oil change, and every 6 months, I dump in some parts. So I make out pretty well.

Some kinda thing with the per diem meal allowance. In my industry, most of my meals are paid for when I'm on the road. Free breakfast in the hotel, and the venues usually provide all other meals for the day. Yet I'm allowed to write off the daily per diem, which is anywhere from $40 to something like $115 (in Alaska) per day.

Cha-ching! Free money.

Now, this is where the logic fails. By taking all these deductions, Push, you're absolutely correct, it lessens my tax hit considerably, to the tune of several grand a year.

But.... what this USCIS ruling says is they won't consider overlooking these deductions and instead, they only want to look at line 22, and the only way you can bring up line 22 is by giving up these deductions and paying a significantly higher amount in taxes.

So.... in order to show them my "ability to provide the necessary support to the intending immigrant(s)", I would have to give up the deductions and fork over about $3-$4 grand to pay the tax differential, just to make the line 22 all pretty for them. Take away real money to show fake money.

blink.gif

If you don't find this hysterical in a "Kafka meets 'Brazil'" kinda-way, well, clearly you have zero sense of humor.
Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-22 22:53:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
QUOTE (pushbrk @ Jul 21 2009, 11:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (Steve_and_Lina @ Jul 21 2009, 08:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Everyone's got their opinions on it, but only one opinion will matter and we'll wait to see what that is.


You got a mouse in your pocket? The rest of us already know the answer. Good luck though.

What will you do if you don't have an answer until after you provide the affidavit? What will you do in the event of a denial based on public charge concerns?


We have a cosponsor who's already filled out the paperwork and is waiting to hear if it needs to be submitted. We're not thrilled, but if that's the only way to do this that isn't going to cost us thousands of dollars, well, all parties agree it's for the best.
Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-22 22:22:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
QUOTE (Gary and Alla @ Jul 21 2009, 11:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
{snip}
YOU have CHOSEN to file YOUR taxes in the way which was most beneficial to YOU to reduce the amount of money YOU paid to the government. GOOD FOR YOU!!!!!!! I agree. I will keep every $ I can for myself and my family since that is who I work to earn money for. The grocery store couldn't care less what my 1040 looks like, but they are greatly impressed with the appearance of US currency which I (and you) have more of because of how we CHOSE to file our taxes.

But you cannot come back later and say "But, but...." and get "credit" for the "income" you CHOSE to write off as "expense and costs". In fact you have MUCH MORE choice than a w-2 employee (who has none) and you have CHOSEN the one that is BEST for keeping money in your pocket but is the WORST for showing "income".

I mean, c'mon, stop with the righteous indignation. You sat down with your accountant (or as in my case, my accountant is me, yourself) and said "Make my tax as low as possible". Of course you did. So did I. (for 2007, I have since been incorporated and now receive a salary, w-2 and bonuses) You succeeded in making your tax as low as possible BUT the only way to do that was to make your INCOME as low as possible. Now you have to live with your CHOICE. That you didn't realize it would come back to bite you in the a$$ is not a valid excuse and does not change the rules of accounting and tax filing or affidavits of support.

Now if it makes you feel better, I will agree with you (I do, actually) and say "Yeah, you're right" and you will feel better? Go right ahead. File an I-134 with your insufficent income and no co-sponsor. There is another saying on this site..."Non Money, No Honey". Maybe we are wrong and it isn't really that way. Good luck.

Like I said, you need to forget about 2008. It was a CHOICE made without full information on your part, nothing to change it now without a huge tax expense. Better to get busy documenting the income you will make THIS year as it is more important anyway. You are spending 90% of your time on 10% of your problem. Not a good way to run a business.


You're right. I had no idea of the ramifications of how I filed my taxes. Silly me, I filed them honestly and didn't play any games with the government or hide things or fudge numbers to jigger the system. This is my income, these are my deductions, and if the government is telling us the only way to correctly play the system is to either cheat the system or cheat yourself, then something is seriously wrong and needs to be fixed.

I showed sufficient income according to a reasonable reading of the definition. I've discussed this with people and they agree- I've got a damn good argument.

It all hinges on the definition of "income before deductions." I've sent an email asking for a clarification of the phrase, since there are reasonable grounds to question the current interpretation. Everyone's got their opinions on it, but only one opinion will matter and we'll wait to see what that is.


Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-21 22:21:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
QUOTE (Gary and Alla @ Jul 21 2009, 08:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Your argument is correct. It doesn't matter. It isn't fair. It doesn't matter. The w-2 employee (and his employer) pay the 15.3% SS and medicare tax on ALL money paid to him for vehicles, YOU do not. YOU are far ahead of him in "money in the bank". Be happy. YOU do not get to claim it as "income" because you didn't pay tax on it...the w-2 guy did. Presumable you have the "tax savings" in the bank which can be used as an asset to offset your deficiency in income.

Like it or not, I have submitted SIX affadavits over a two "tax year" period and that is the way it is. You DO NOT have to like it.



Nor do I have to stand idly by and accept a deficiency of logic on the part of USCIS. It is brutally unfair. (see my above response) And no, I am not happy because I am being told, effectively, to make a choice that others in near-identical circumstances do not have to make- forgo legal deductions and pay $4k more in taxes, or we don't let your wife and kid into the country, but we'll wave Joe W2's (who pays the exact same expenses you do) wife and kid into the country.

And ok already, you win. I've only submitted 4 I-864s.
Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-21 07:52:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
QUOTE (pushbrk @ Jul 21 2009, 01:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yes, I do. You choose to eat the tax advantages. Once eaten, that part of the cake is no longer visible to USCIS. You can't report 1099 income on a 1040 but you are not forced to eat the tax advantages available when you report it on the schedule C. You are free to explain and document the financial ramifications in your affidavit of support. If you can convince USCIS to consider them, more power to you.


See, this is what is counter-intuitive.

Your position- and the current position of USCIS- is that in order to make the line 22 number work, 1099 employees must forgo legal deductions on their taxes.

But what is the real-life ramification of doing so?

Taking the auto deduction example again, one would then have to pay an additional 15% in taxes on $17,500 in income, for starters. That's $2,625. Then there would be the increase in the self-employment tax as well. I don't have time to run all the numbers, but what we're looking at is that a 1099 person would have to shell out an additional $4k or so at the very least.

So that's $4k one would have to pay in taxes that they legally do not have to pay.

Isn't the purpose of the I-864 to make sure one has the means to support their wife/kid? Yet, because USCIS, for whatever reason, doesn't wish to consider line 7 of the C, a 1099 person now must shell out $4k that could otherwise be used for food, rent, putting some bucks aside for college for the kid, etc etc.

Again, it makes no sense. This isn't a choice of what kind of cake to eat. This is assessing a brutally punitive tax on self-employed people whose costs are the exact same as a W2 employee.

So the logic is that in order to show us you can support your family, you must give up $4,000.

Huh?????
Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-21 07:42:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
QUOTE (pushbrk @ Jul 21 2009, 12:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
USCIS has not created a separate entity. They are only concerned about the income of you the person, not your business. The IRS has created a tax filing system that allows you to choose to separate the business revenue minus expenses from your "personal income". When you choose to eat that cake by by subtracting allowable business expenses on a schedule C to reduce your tax liability, you leave less cake for USCIS to consider. This is only a problem when line 22 has a number lower than USCIS is looking for.

As for your auto expense allowance being far more than your actual expenses, there's no place to account for that. As far as USCIS knows, you're taking a mileage allowance for a vehicle that's costing you even more to operate than the mileage allowance. You could be taking an allowance many thousands of dollars less than actual operating costs. They can't see that piece of cake like you do, so they don't have a way to consider it.


But in this instance, my business is me.

And I am given no choice by the IRS on how to file my taxes. 1099 income gets reported on a schedule C, not the 1040. If you report 1099 income on the 1040, you're in violation of the law. There's no wiggle room there.

I am legally entitled to eat the cake by the IRS tax code. And the failure of the USCIS to grasp the implications is a failing on their part that needs to be corrected.

In terms of your point about the auto expense. What's to say the W2 employee isn't also driving a clunker that needs a new $3000 tranny every 8 months and a few grand more in parts? Does USCIS inquire about that? No, they don't.

The base fact of my argument remains- 2 people, identical driving expenses, identical $35,000 incomes, but the W2 person is considered to have an income still of $35,000, the 1099 person an income of $17,500 (if they take their write-offs to which they are entitled which give the 1099 person more actual in-pocket income than the W2 person.)

C'mon, you really can't consider this to be fair, let alone make any sense, do you?
Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-20 23:22:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
QUOTE (JimVaPhuong @ Jul 20 2009, 11:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Ok, let me see if I can explain this so that it makes sense, and it will be a challenge because I despise accounting and taxes. I can't wait until I can hire someone to do this stuff for me, and I can focus on designing new products.

A business is an entity - it brings in revenue, it pays expenses, and it pays taxes on the difference (grossly simplified, but you get the point). In the case of a corporation or LLC, the business entity is a legal construct. It has executives, board members, employees, it may even have stock holders. In the case of a sole proprietorship or self-employed individual, the business consists of an actual person, and the business doesn't pay any taxes because everything left after expenses becomes the income of the individual.

Your tax return includes income and deductions (if you like) for two entities; Steve (the business) and Steve (the individual taxpayer). Both are the same person, but there is a line between them as far as the government is concerned. Steve (the business) has revenues and expenses, and the difference is the personal income of Steve (the individual taxpayer). Because both entities are actually the same person, the IRS lets you combine them onto a single tax return, but the accounting is still kept separate - schedule C for Steve (the business) and the 1040 for Steve (the individual taxpayer).

USCIS and Department of State don't give a damn about Steve (the business) because that's not the entity that is sponsoring a foreign beneficiary. If it were, then the beneficiary would be applying for a work visa. Steve (the individual taxpayer) is sponsoring the beneficiary, and that's whose income they care about. If you want to make that income look better for USCIS and Department of State, then you need to shift more money from the business side of Steve over to the personal side of Steve. This means that Steve (the business) either needs more revenue or less expenses.

What you want USCIS and the State Department to do is to consider the income of Steve (the business) as if that entity were the sponsor. It isn't, which is why I made the comparison to myself taking deductions for money my employer spends on me, and why I made the comment about your attempting to move the line between the two entities.

Don't make me think about this stuff any more. It makes my head hurt. blush.gif


Jim,

Thank you for a very succinct explanation. I understand the logic, but do not agree with it. My "business" is me and is conducted/taxed/etc under my social security number. There's no separate legal entity and for USCIS and the State Department to create one that conflicts with definition set by the IRS is wrong.

I'm with you about the headache, 'cause "dammit, Jim, I'm a stagehand, not a legal tax guru." (sorry, couldn't resist.) whistling.gif
Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-20 22:45:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
QUOTE (Gary and Alla @ Jul 20 2009, 09:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
NOW you understand completely. There needs to be a more equitable standard at work...but there isn't. You CANNOT say something is NOT income to the IRS (and NOT pay tax on it) and then say to USCIS that it IS income. Pay your nickle and take your choice.

Get a current P&L prepared and a bank letter. My suggestions on how to do this are in the above posts where we don't discuss semantics and California Bolshevism.


Well, there should be an equitable standard. The fact that there isn't shows the glaring need to fix it because clearly, it is FUBARed and people are getting unfairly hurt by this.

And your logic fails. I'm not telling the IRS it's not income. On the contrary. Line 7 of Schedule C reads "gross income".

The fact that the tax code is then written to reduce my tax burden should have zero to do with USCIS's interpretation. The bottom line remains that my income before deductions more than satisfies the 125% threshold and we can argue semantics about "expenses" versus "deductions", but when you look at the intent of the law, the distinction between them is meaningless.

Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-20 21:42:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
QUOTE (Gary and Alla @ Jul 20 2009, 09:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You are no more "invested" than any other self employed person. Please do not suggest you are somehow more invested than any of the others of us that have been engaged and subsequently married our fiancees and filed TWO (in my case SIX) affadivits of support (K-1 and two K-2s)

"Deductions" are from personal income, AFTER line 22 and have no effect on line 22. Businesses do not have "deductions" they have "expenses" and "costs". The business income is NOT persoanl income from which you can support someone (well, it is, but not on paper) and it is not considered by the consulates or the USCIS. Those are the facts, man. Like it, love it, hate it...or get over it, those are the facts.

I will not argue your interpretation of "deductions" ,even though the word is not mentioned on the schedule C, because it doesn't matter. Your income on line 22 will be considered. And as mentioned above and in my FIRST post on this subject...CURRENT income is more important. It is July, alomost August, you mean you cannot show CURRENT income is above the guidelines? I hae been hinting around aboit this and hopefully you will drop the semantics argument long enough to understand my meaning. Sheesh. LAST YEAR's income is virtually a non-issue at this point. Turn your efforts to something productive and get a P&L statement for THIS year (to date) prepared.


I'm not claiming to be any more invested. Quite the contrary, my heart goes out to everyone who's gone through or is going through the process. This isn't a contest to see who's filed more paperwork or jumped through more hoops- don't try to make it into one or think I'm trying to make it into one. Quite the contrary, I'm looking for an answer to my dilemma while at the same time hoping that what I'm going through might help others in the same situation.

Did you read my post above about vehicle costs? If so, explain to me the difference between the W2 person and the 1099 person. Two people, same exact actual expense, but per the current interpretation by USCIS and the State Department, the W2 person is considered to have $35,000 in "income before deductions" and the 1099 person is considered to have $17,500 in "income before deductions".

Please, if you can, explain to me how that is fair or why it is the 1099 person, who financially comes out far better in this situation in terms of real dollars in their pocket, is instead deemed to be the person incapable of supporting someone.

Your point about current income is moot. My business is cyclical. I make about 65% of my income from September until the new year, and have for the past 17 years. Besides, USCIS isn't allowed to project future potential income so unless you've made more than the 125% already in the year, it doesn't matter.

Finally, your point that "those are the facts"..... well, I don't buy it. I'm not looking around seeing people owning slaves or women being told they can't vote, just to mention a few examples. If there's something wrong with the system, for me, shrugging it off and saying "those are the facts" isn't an option. You fight to change it, especially when it involves your family.


Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-20 21:28:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
Jim,

Sorry, can't edit my response so a new post is needed.

Now, the tax return's "Total Income" numbers on line 22 are fairly low because of these generous business expense deductions, which means you're getting a nice break on your taxes. But your REAL personal income is actually much higher. However, the "Total Income" numbers end up being SO low that you don't appear to qualify to sponsor an immigrant, according to your household size, even though your REAL income would be high enough.

Yes, that's precisely my point. You can see from the example about the mileage precisely how generous these expense write-offs are. Now, folks can argue about depreciation being factored into the mileage allowance etc etc etc, but still.... the W2 is putting the same wear and tear on their car and they're not allowed any sort of deduction.

There needs to be an equitable standard at work, and there isn't one. Quite the contrary.
Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-20 19:02:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
QUOTE (JimVaPhuong @ Jul 19 2009, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Ok, let me get this straight.


Jimmy, I am going to italicize your post and answer point-by-point.

The IRS allows you to tally your business expenses at a rate that is higher than what you actually spend on those expenses. The result is that you have more money left over for your personal income than your tax return would seem to indicate.

Yes.

Now, the tax return's "Total Income" numbers on line 22 are fairly low because of these generous business expense deductions, which means you're getting a nice break on your taxes. But your REAL personal income is actually much higher. However, the "Total Income" numbers end up being SO low that you don't appear to qualify to sponsor an immigrant, according to your household size, even though your REAL income would be high enough.

Partially true. The regulation says that the pre-deduction income figure is the one which is to be considered. As a 1099 employee, this income is reported by me on my Schedule C.

So, what YOU want is for the IRS to continue to give you the generous deductions for your business expenses,

I'm entitled to them under the US tax code, so yes.

but you want USCIS to take into account that that you're not REALLY spending that much on your business, and you ACTUALLY have more personal income than your tax return would appear to indicate.

This is the reality of the situation as I showed with the mileage deduction, so yes. And again, there is nothing illegal about this. It is all 100% above-board.

To be more specific, YOU want USCIS to pretend you didn't have ANY business expenses, and that your gross business income was entirely available to you as PERSONAL income.

No, I'm not asking USCIS to pretend I don't have expenses. I do. But we all have expenses. The difference is in how USCIS treats them.

If you're a W2 employee, USCIS isn't asking you how much you are paying each day to commute to work or if you take a meal with your boss how much you paid for it and penalizing you for it. USCIS doesn't care what you spend your money on- their only concern is how much you bring in at the top, before taxes and expenses, your income before deductions or living expenses. You can go out and blow all your money at the casino or on drugs, for all they know or care. You could be $50,000 in debt and sinking deeper, but if you're making $25,000 a year for a family of 2, it's ok. They don't ask.

But heaven forbid you're a 1099 employee. Suddenly, all your work expenses are deemed to suck money out of your bottom line.

Let's look at this example and only at car stuff. A W2 and a 1099 both have cars that get 25mpg and gas is $2.50/gallon, both drive 100 miles to/from work, both pay $5 in tolls, and both pay $10 for parking.

For the W2, the commuting expense is $25/day, $125/week, $6,250 for a 50 week year to be paid out of pocket. That's less money for the family (I am generously giving 2 weeks vacation.)

For the 1099, the initial costs are the same. But..... they get to write off all the tolls and parking. That's $15/day, $75/week, $3,750. Now, the biggie- mileage. 500 miles/week, 25000 miles/year @ $.55/mile = $13,750 + $3,750 = $17,500, which they then are allowed to deduct from their income.

Let's say both the W2 and the 1099 both make $35,000 for the year before taxes. Here's the fun part. Buying the "line 22" argument, the 1099 person appears to only be making $17,500, even though as you can plainly see, they both have a post-driving expense income of $28,750.

Do you now see the utter insanity of the line 22 argument? It is utterly and completely devoid of logic.



To be precise, you want USCIS to treat your business expense deductions the same as they treat your personal deductions. Am I correct?

As long as the regulation reads "income before deductions", yes. See above.

Ok, let me know if you are win because you will have successfully forced USCIS to move the line they draw between your business and personal finances, effectively making your business revenues the same as your personal income. If that works then I'm going to talk to my employer, because they spend a boatload of money on me, and I'd like it considered on my affidavit of support.

What's good for the goose... good.gif

Read what I wrote above. And you're absolutely correct- what's good for the goose- in this instance, the government not considering a W2's expenses- should also be good for the 1099 gander. :: honk honk ::
Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-20 18:46:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
QUOTE (Gary and Alla @ Jul 20 2009, 06:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Line 22 is the rule. It is "Total Income" by anyone's definition. Most importantly, by the IRS definition.

You are confusing "deductions" (which come from your personal total income and are NOT counted against you as they are "below" line 22, and business expenses and costs. There are no business "deductions", there are business "costs" and "expenses".

You COULD, for example, forego the vehicle "expense" on your business income and then claim it as an a business expense on your Schedule A and deduct it from your personal income "below" line 22 with no affect on your "total income". Why didn't you do this? Because then you have to pay 15%+ per cent self employment tax on the money. However thast vehicle benfits your family and you get no credit for it.

Sorry, I have to agree with Pushbrk. (not so sorry actually as he is correct) You can indiginantly declare that you cannot find any specific rule about this or that but if you think the USCIS or the Consulate is going to fabricate credits for you over and above the "total income" claimed on line 22 of your ITR, you are a dreamer. And you can protest all you want.

The good news is, that there is no particular rule that you meet the guidelines, only that you prove your fiancee/spouse will not become a public charge. Maybe USCIS will make an exception in your case. Good luck with that.


I am not asking anyone to fabricate any credits. What I claim is what is allowed to me under the law I'm not doing any sort of creative tax work or bending the rules.

The language of the regulation is quite clear- "before deductions".

What's the difference between a deduction and an expense? In both cases, it's a cost to you that the IRS allows you to offset on your taxes to reduce your overall tax burden, be it the self-employment tax or the general income tax. There is no difference- it's only semantics, and even then, these semantics do not appear in the code. "Total income before deductions."

And let's say I did what you suggest about switching vehicle expenses from Schedule C to Schedule A. Suddenly, this expense/deduction becomes okay to them why? Because I then have to pay more self-employment tax?

Excuse me, but isn't the whole purpose of this AOS is to show that you have enough money to support the intending immigrant? So how is telling someone no, you cannot write off this expense on this portion of your taxes,and instead must write it off on this other portion of your taxes, and then pay more in taxes, reducing the amount you have to then support your family, make any sort of sense whatsoever?

Maybe I'm too deeply invested to look at this dispassionately, but to me, that seems entirely counter-intuitive.
Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-20 17:52:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
QUOTE (pushbrk @ Jul 19 2009, 10:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I work out of my home too and almost always have, whether W2, business or 1099. You are asking to have your cake (the tax advantages) and eat it too. It doesn't work that way, isn't intended to and won't.

We all understand the tax advantages and that the actual money available to spend on things others don't get to deduct means that effectively, the self-employed person's income is understated on line 22. Certain allowable expense deductions are not only significantly higher than the actual out of pocket expense. Also, when it comes to automobile expenses, those whose commute is from the kitchen to the garage with all other mileage or actual operating expense providing a reduction of taxable income is a huge benefit that contributes to the line 22 understatement of income. You don't have a problem with that until it bites you in the butt on your affadavit of support. We/I get it. It bites me too. The difference is, I'm willing to accept that I don't get to have my cake and eat it too and you're not. Nevertheless, the outcome is going to be you have no choice but to live with it because that's the way it is. No amount of convenient misinterpretation is going get you the cake back to eat twice.

If you want to be treated like a W2 employee leave the cake on the shelf instead of eating it and wanting it back again.


What do you mean "have your cake and eat it too"?

I'm not looking to defraud the government or achieve any sort of advantage not given to others. I have played fairly, according to the rules and laws set down by the government.

I've stated my position and have based it upon the law.

Clearly, you have a problem with that and seem rather hostile and I don't know why, nor do I really care. You have your opinion which deems my position a "creative misinterpretation" but fail to provide any facts to back up your position. I've asked you repeatedly to provide any sort of citation to support your position or to prove mine incorrect and you haven't provided one in repeated posts. You've just continued to state opinion, not law, compounded by insults. As such, I've responded to you the last time, and I find it really mind-blowing that anyone would come on this board to insult others and be less than helpful. I really feel sorry for you if you have nothing better to do with your time.
Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-19 21:51:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
QUOTE (diadromous mermaid @ Jul 19 2009, 09:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Ah, so your work out of your home? I must have missed that.


For tax purposes, yes, home is my work base, and I then travel to work sites, so however I get there- driving in my car, taking the subway/bus, plane tickets- is 100% tax deductible. Not sure how different it would be if I had an office/business space elsewhere.
Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-19 21:18:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
QUOTE (diadromous mermaid @ Jul 19 2009, 09:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Commute miles to work are not expense that can be deducted. So, in this particular case, you and the employee are in the same boat, unless you schedule a business call at the end of your driveway both first thing in the morning and last thing at the end of the day.


Quite the contrary. Because I'm a 1099, everything I do regarding my work, including driving mileage to/fron contract jobs, is considered business-related and a business expense. It isn't deductible if the job I work that particular day is a W2 job, which some of them are, and on my Schedule C worksheet in Turbotax, I have to report total miles for the year, commuting (non-deductible) mileage, personal mileage, and business mileage.
Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-19 20:27:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
QUOTE (diadromous mermaid @ Jul 19 2009, 08:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Actually, no I'm not a W-2 type wink.gif If it makes a difference I am a CEO of a corporation.

By the way, the "benefit" to which you refer, for mileage is what IRS claims is the requisite value of operating a vehicle for business use. It goes beyond a consideration for fuel. Haven't you considered that your "employer" is having you use your vehicle for "his" business purposes, and is accelerating the date when you'll be facing disposal of that asset due to extra use and at a lower market value.

What pushbrk and I have been trying to state (he better than I, in this case) is that a "deduction" is not a "deduction" in the sense you are proposing. You are confounding the vernacular.


Ah, but therein lies the rub. I am assuming your employees must show up for work every day and that at least some of them drive. They have to put wear and tear on their vehicle, pay for gas, parking, tolls, and insurance, and are not allowed to write off a single penny of it.

I make out a lot better than them because I am given a tax deduction that takes into account all of these things. Not only that, I can deduct myriad other things, some at cost, some at a rate that far exceeds actual cost. (hello, per diems in Alaska!) If I work in town and ride the subway in, it's a tax write-off as well. Not for them, though.

So who makes out better? When all is said and done, who has more left at the end of the day to support their family? The poor devils who spend $10 a day for gas and another $15 for parking, or the guy who not only gets to write off the $25, but gets to write off an additional $40?

And really, isn't the whole purpose of this is to ensure that we're able to support our family?

This is my entire point and is why I am fighting this.


Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-19 19:50:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
QUOTE (pushbrk @ Jul 19 2009, 07:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Pull out your 1040 form and find the line that shows "total income". See if it isn't line 22 like it is on mine and everybody elses. Words, phrases, clauses, sentences and paragraphs always have a context. The context here is the total income line on a US tax return. "Deductions" and "business expenses" are not the same thing. Business expenses reduce "income". "Deductions" reduce tax liability on income. Business "income" is considered, "revenue" minus "expenses" in the broadest sense and no added detail will support your argument. Allowable deductions for business related expenses are calculated BEFORE "total income" on any US tax return.

That's the context and the vast majority of business people either already understand that or have their accountants explain it to them. A tax benefit can bite you on an affidavit of support. That's the way it is.


First off, I really object to the insulting tone of your post. This might be an amusing little exercise to you, but this is my family and I am deadly serious about this.

Now that that is out of the way...

You're correct about line 22 saying "total income". However, on Schedule C line 7, it says "Gross income" as well.

I challenge your assertion about "deductions" and "business expenses" being different. You're correct in that "business expenses" ultimate reduces income. The same can be said for "deductions". Both result in a lower NET income.

But everything I read suggests the government is not concerned about net income, only gross income, and this is again why I am waiting on a ruling from the State Department on this. The regulation is not clear cut and this is why I am challenging their interpretation of it. It is a matter of semantics and the current interpretation runs contrary to the intended effect of the regulation- that those of us who wish to bring family here have the necessary income to support them.

It shouldn't cut both ways, that the government can tell a small independent contractor that they will take into account income minus legal tax write offs, but not demand an accounting of expenses from W2 employees. There's an innate failure of logic that is demonstrated in my previous post.
Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-19 19:35:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
QUOTE (diadromous mermaid @ Jul 19 2009, 07:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I wasn't comparing legal and illegal. I was trying to understand why the OP is focused on the fact that the figure he transfers from his Schedule C to line 7 is a penalising him. Frankly, I think and I am not a tax person, that he's confusing business deductions from personal deductions.


But why should there be a difference in how they are treated? A deduction is a deduction is a deduction. And honestly, in the long run, from a standpoint of who ends up with the most money, I win.

For instance, I am allowed to deduct what amount to four times what I actually pay for gas for my commute to/from jobs, not to mention whatever I pay in tolls and parking. In essence, I am getting a very hefty tax credit, especially since I am driving an already-paid for car and very little monthly insurance.

I'm assuming you're a W2 sort- you're not allowed to deduct anything. You get your paycheck and out of pocket you have to pay gas, tolls, parking, insurance, etc.

So I get a tax deduction to the tune of about $.35-$.40 for every mile I drive, which lowers what I report as my gross income on my 1040 on line 22 but in reality puts more money in my pocket by lessening my tax hit significantly. (and yes, this is all 100% legal)

You? Not only do you have to pay higher taxes because you're not allowed to take these deductions, you also have the out-of-pocket cost of gas/parking/tolls on top of it.

Does this make it a little more clear?
Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-19 19:13:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
Also, one more point.

If the amount on Line 22 were considered the be-all end-all figure, wouldn't it state this in the directions for the I-864, something direct and unequivocal like "Enter the amount from Line 22 of Form 1040 here."?

But it doesn't, and instead gives examples of what is considered income, including salary.

Many times the government parses the law to our disadvantage. In this instance, it might work in the other direction and I hope this is the case, not just for me and my wife and stepdaughter, but for everyone else who finds themselves in the same boat and works hard, abides by the rules, yet find themselves being unfairly held to a different standard.
Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-19 18:07:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
QUOTE (diadromous mermaid @ Jul 19 2009, 06:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Help me to better understand your feeling that the business eowner is being penalised. Where is the business owner's dilemma (unfairness in the "income" requirement) any different from a hard-working food server that gets cash tips that far exceed her income that is paid direct from the employer? She can report her tips and show a healthier income for USCIS purposes, and pay more tax as a consequence, or she can not declare a sizeable amount of her earnings, and reap the tax rewards, and fail to meet the USCIS income requirement. How does that differ from what you are claiming?
QUOTE (Steve_and_Lina @ Jul 19 2009, 06:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (pushbrk @ Jul 18 2009, 09:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (Steve_and_Lina @ Jul 17 2009, 05:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No, I'm not confusing it.


No, you're not confusing it, just conveniently misinterpreting it. The context is quite clear and is defined further as income from line 22 of the 1040 form. I'm self employed too, have no employees, overhead or inventory, (Well one of my businesses has a little inventory now and then.) and I'm not incorporated. It's all 1099 or direct income. Line 22 rules. You'd best learn to live with it. The tax advantages of being self-employed can come back to bite you on an affidavit of support.



Can you cite precisely the law or regulation where it says that "preduction income" is defined by only by what is entered Line 22?

Nothing that I have read has specifically said that this is the only interpretation. The wording is very hazy in the reg I cited, only stating "pre-deduction income" on the "income tax form". Well, Schedule C is an "income tax form" and I've established my preduction income via my 1099s and W2s, so failing a direct regulation or ruling that establishes Line 22 as the ONLY definition, I have a valid legal argument. More than valid, actually, because in this instance, the government appears to be violating the regulation by considering post-deduction income, contrary (again) to the regulation I cited.

And really, "learn to live with it"? I'm not the sort to stand by silently and be incorrectly penalized and just because others have chosen to done so does not validate that as a reasonable course of action. If according to the regulations (and I am shown so conclusively) I am incorrect, then I will accept it. But to this point, the issue remains wide open.




I'm not going to compare apples/oranges here, nor get into the ethical issues of filing a fraudulent return/falsely declaring income. Those are other discussions for other posts. I am only concerned about this narrow issue which directly affects me.

My contention that I am being penalized stems from all the arguments I've laid out in my previous posts- that those of us who receive 1099 income are being treated differently than those who receive W2 income in that for us, they are considering post-deduction income, which directly contravenes 9 FAM 40.41 N5.5-1, which state that income is defined as follows:

"Income", for the purpose of Form I-864, means total unadjusted income as shown on the tax return, before deductions. Total unadjusted income includes not only salary (if any) but also monetary gains from any other source, such as rent, interest, dividends, etc.


Read it and parse it carefully and then show me where the regulation directly refutes my argument. It doesn't. Others here think it does, but they are only offering their interpretation of what the regulation says, unsupported by any direct citation of the regulation or immigration court precedent.
Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-19 17:51:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
QUOTE (pushbrk @ Jul 18 2009, 09:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (Steve_and_Lina @ Jul 17 2009, 05:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No, I'm not confusing it.


No, you're not confusing it, just conveniently misinterpreting it. The context is quite clear and is defined further as income from line 22 of the 1040 form. I'm self employed too, have no employees, overhead or inventory, (Well one of my businesses has a little inventory now and then.) and I'm not incorporated. It's all 1099 or direct income. Line 22 rules. You'd best learn to live with it. The tax advantages of being self-employed can come back to bite you on an affidavit of support.



Can you cite precisely the law or regulation where it says that "preduction income" is defined by only by what is entered Line 22?

Nothing that I have read has specifically said that this is the only interpretation. The wording is very hazy in the reg I cited, only stating "pre-deduction income" on the "income tax form". Well, Schedule C is an "income tax form" and I've established my preduction income via my 1099s and W2s, so failing a direct regulation or ruling that establishes Line 22 as the ONLY definition, I have a valid legal argument. More than valid, actually, because in this instance, the government appears to be violating the regulation by considering post-deduction income, contrary (again) to the regulation I cited.

And really, "learn to live with it"? I'm not the sort to stand by silently and be incorrectly penalized and just because others have chosen to done so does not validate that as a reasonable course of action. If according to the regulations (and I am shown so conclusively) I am incorrect, then I will accept it. But to this point, the issue remains wide open.
Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-19 17:27:00
US Embassy and Consulate DiscussionIncome and Loss
Sorry, I tried editing my previous response and couldn't. Here's what is should read:

QUOTE (diadromous mermaid @ Jul 17 2009, 07:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think you're confounding "business income", or in your case "the income derived from the services you provide" from "personal income". In determining income for USCIS, a self-proprietor takes the inome of the business that is attributed to himself or left over to pay himself for the service he has offered to his entity ( that would be after business deductions, cost of goods sold, expenses etc) and uses that figure (from Schedule C) in lieu of providing a w-2, which is what an employee would have. The citation you quote from the FAM is written as it pertains to an individual, an indididual's income (not an entities' income), so "deductions" in this context refer to personal deductions, itemized and the federal standard deductions.
QUOTE (Steve_and_Lina @ Jul 13 2009, 07:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Actually, I'm in a discussion now with the US Consulate in Moscow on this very topic, as this is throwing a major wrench in the visa applications for my wife and stepdaughter.

I work mainly as an independent contractor and the majority of my income is reported to me on 1099s. When I do my taxes, I fill out a Schedule C and on line 7, enter my total income. Further down the form, I then enter all my deductions, subtract them from my income, and this figure gets transferred over to my 1040 on line 12.

Now, the issue of contention is this. According to the Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 9 (which is the guidebook for the regulations involving, among other things, immigrant visas), in section 9 FAM 40.41 N5.5-1, income is defined as follows:

"Income", for the purpose of Form I-864, means total unadjusted income as shown on the tax return, before deductions. Total unadjusted income includes not only salary (if any) but also monetary gains from any other source, such as rent, interest, dividends, etc.

It is my argument that the amount that gets transferred over to the 1040 line 12 is not unadjusted income, but adjusted income, since that figure represents my income minus deductions. As you can see, that conflicts with the directive I quoted above.

Instead, when considering income, I am contending that the State Department should use the figure on line 7 of the Schedule C and all other income on lines 7-11 and 13-21 on form 1040.

I will post a new comment when the Consulate issues their ruling. In the meantime, I'll continue to be sick to my stomach from worrying and unable to sleep. Isn't this fun?



No, I'm not confusing it. I don't own a business per se. I'm not incorporated or in any sort of partnership. I don't have any employees.

The entire thing hinges upon 2 definitions.

1- income, which we saw from above is defined as this- Total unadjusted income includes not only salary (if any) but also monetary gains from any other source, such as rent, interest, dividends, etc

I get hired for jobs and get paid by 1099 instead of by W2. This is my salary and because of the IRS tax code, I must declare this income on a Schedule C, rather than on my 1040.

2- Unadjusted income

By definition, this is income before deductions.

Now, let's look at this. Suppose I owned a property and rented it out. According to the definition above, the rent would be defined as income and factored in and zero consideration is given to the cost/expense of the property- taxes, renovations/improvements, closing costs, etc etc. All things that deduct from the amount made from the property have zero bearing in this and you can claim the full amount of rent received as income for the purposes of the I-864, even if you spent 10 times the rent you received on renovations/etc. Heck, even if you torched the place and insurance paid zippo and you lost out on a $500,000 property, it wouldn't matter because USCIS/the State Dept don't care about that side of the equation. They only care about income.

So why should Schedule C deductions be treated differently? If the argument is because they're expenses I must pay, then consistency demands that W2 income be treated in the exact same manner. But it's not. The regulation specifically states "prededuction income". It doesn't differentiate between business/schedule C deductions and any of the 1040 deductions.

And again, if anything, because I am allowed to write off so many more things than W2 employees, I get to keep a far greater portion of my income and logically, this should weigh even more in my favor, not less. To take your argument, when all is said and done, after expenses I have more money to pay myself, especially considering that what I am allowed to write off in expenses in terms of mileage greatly exceeds what I actually pay.

But this should be a moot point, going back to the whole "unadjusted income" argument.

It's a huge black hole I've fallen into here. Surely I can't be the first person who's run into this since these regs were put in back in '96. Or I just found a big loophole that other people completely missed. I don't know.
Steve_and_LinaMaleRussia2009-07-17 19:49:00