No announcement yet.


  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JermCool
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But beyond that, this claim is just categorically, demonstrably false. As Eric Boehlert and Atrios both demonstrated yesterday, Ted Kennedy in September, 2002 "delivered a passionate, provocative, and newsworthy speech raising all sorts of doubts about a possible invasion." Moreover, Al Gore (the prior presidential nominee of the Democratic Party) and Howard Dean (the 2003 Democratic presidential frontrunner) were both emphatically speaking out against the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    I love this!

    Especially those shots of Ted Kennedy and Al Gore. It's just beautiful.

    Oh yeah! Those speeches to speak out FOR the war were in 2002!

    Leave a comment:

  • JermCool
    Again with the GermCool.

    In case you've been living under a rock (which wouldn't surprise me since you apparently have no concept of the real world), that really has no effect on me. My last name is Schmitt. You can imagine what kind of grief my younger self got from that. So if you really feel the need to be that immature, there's some proper ammo. Have fun!

    Leave a comment:

  • JermCool
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lalalalalala......
    Why am I not surprised, and why is the media acting so shocked???
    They thought the truth was not going to come out??
    Lalalalalala........ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Indeed, former Bush aides joined current White House aides in expressing disbelief and disappointment at McClellan's account.

    "Not once did Scott approach me "” privately or publicly "” to discuss any misgivings he had about the war in Iraq or the manner in which the White House made the case for war," McClellan's predecessor as press secretary, Ari Fleischer, said.

    Said Fran Townsend, former head of the White House-based counterterrorism office and now a CNN commentator: "This now strikes me as self-serving, disingenuous and unprofessional." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    But allow me to express my shock and amazement that you would jump on this.

    I'm done.

    Leave a comment:

  • Hudson
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
    It's not a national security threat. It's tax avoidance. As bright as day Hudson.
    All the Haliburton thugs and others are going to expatriate probably and buy foreign citizenships to avoid getting taxed.
    This is the face of corporatism- profit uber alles. Cutting wages, avoiding paying benefits, finding ways to find cheap labor, and avoiding taxes.
    If we are to rely solely on the "invisible" market forces of supply and demand, this isn't going to work. The Right is clearly Wrong.
    I could go on, but why try explain simple truths to republicans (again)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Maybe, maybe not IP. It depends if the employer is a foreign employer or not. If foreign employer and you are an employee working outside the US, no SS and income taxes are required to be withheld. neither is submitting a form W-2 to the Social Security Administration. If US employer, then SS Taxes are withheld and income taxes are withheld unless employee files form 673 not to withhold taxes. But alas, whether you receive income from here or abroad, you are required to report it. There are avenues which an individualist can exclude income by statue in the IRC or by tax treaty.

    Nor does this have anything to do with market forces. You have a BFA which would help you draw really well, but you cannot analyze anything IP. Nor do you know anything about taxes other than what you use in tax software to assist in filling out those forms. That only touches the surface in Tax code and regulations.

    But why I am explaining this to someone whose busines is in second hand suff is beyond me.

    Leave a comment:

  • Hudson
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    To fill in some obvious holes in this story. These are foreign companies. Odd that the DOD would even contract through such a company but none the less they did. The issue is can the U.S. Treasury/IRS bind a foreign company to our tax and employee benefits laws. The short answer is no they can not. That would be the same as demanding many of the tourist trap business in Tijuana to pay SS tax and various other employee benefits due to them servicing primarily American customers. Won't happen.

    The other side of this issue is the contracting business itself. Generally the contract goes to the lowest bidder. If you compel these extra costs they will be passed back onto the tab for the contract itself. There won't be any savings at all. It will actually cause it to become even more expensive. The profits on a DOD contract are fixed and decided by the Gov so there is no adjusting of those. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    I have wanted to respond to this for awhile. Basically, the article is wrong legally from a tx perspective.

    If a company is incorporated or created in a foreign country, then those country tax laws prevail. US tax laws prevail only if that foreign corporation has a permanent base in the US. If so, then US tax laws prevail, but limited in scope to United States and its political subdivisions. IRS and Treasury Depratment are limited in its enforcement and perhaps enfanced if an agreement with the other tax revenue agency agree to share information mutual beneficial to the respective countries. Thus, it is possible for IRS to reach beyond the shores of the US, but it is complicated, to say the least.

    there are two issues at stake here. One is whether the right work classification is being assigned to that individual. The other issue is placed on the US taxpayer.

    With regards to the first issue, IRS and the Treasury department have some legal avenues to pursue a foreign corporation if it has violated US tax laws. However, it is limited only to those activities that have occurred on US soil. This is where you are correct. It can also have an indirect effect on the workers and place civil penalties on a foreign corporation if it intentionally misclassified an individual work status.

    If an individual, USC or LPR, is employed overseas and is employed by a foreign corporation, then no SS or income tax will be withheld for US tax purposes. If a US company employs an USC or LPR and that individual works is done overseas, then SS and income taxes are withheld for tax purposes. this is also contingent of Totalization agreements wich none exist in the ME area.

    However, whether a USC or LPR is "self employed"," then that individual, not the company, will held responsible for paying SS taxes. This is true even if the self employed income is earned outside US territory.

    As for income taxes, US citizens are also required to report worldwide income wherever the source is derived. To offset potential double taxation, two provisions in the US tax code can help alleviate or eliminate the double taxation. One is Foreign Earned Income exclusion and the other is a foreign tax credit, form 1116.

    Foreign earned income exclusion does have some requirements, and I will not go into those in detail at this time, but it is also an election to be chosen by the US taxpayer. It is not automatic. Foreign tax credit is also an election and it has requirements for the US taxpayer to meet. But again, I will not go into detail now.

    Finally, the real question is why the US government employed a foreign corporation. Well, a majority of those corporation happen to be subsidiaries of US corporations. And even though they might be foreing from a legal standpoint, they are essentially controlled by a parent US corporation one way or another. No national security threat I can tell. has this been the first instance of the US government hiring foreign contractors. The others are true foreign corps, but its parents companies are either located in a country friendly to US government policies or its parents have permanent establishments, base, in the SU. Again, I see no national security threat.

    Pub 54 and 519 provide most of the information from a tax standpoint. And for IP, I will provide IRC cross references at a later time. I am tired, but not from writing thsi.

    Leave a comment:

  • 4now
    woo hooo Iperson



    ISNT THIS a big big NO NO supported by you in the past??

    Oh... silly me.. I guess you flip flopped on this one now too.

    Leave a comment:

  • OldE
    May be I am a madman, but I am not an idiot

    Leave a comment:

  • OldE
    IMHO one must be a great fool to get into debate over this topic

    Leave a comment:

  • iperson
    started a topic ...


Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW




Connect to us



Immigration Daily