singhsa3
07-20 01:27 PM
Brother, the whole point of making them accept our application was to get interim benefits. If those get delayed then obviously we all should be concerned.
It makes me laugh. Everyone screams and jumps up and down that they can't be part of a 750,000 person flood to USCIS.
And then they get that right.
And then they get all mad that they have to wait for their EADs.
I don't see how USCIS could ever make anyone happy!
It makes me laugh. Everyone screams and jumps up and down that they can't be part of a 750,000 person flood to USCIS.
And then they get that right.
And then they get all mad that they have to wait for their EADs.
I don't see how USCIS could ever make anyone happy!
kumar1
08-20 11:28 PM
Missouri story - I was sent home by DMV office, reason, I was not carrying my latest Pay stubs. I hate these Midwestern states...they were sleeping before 9/11 and suddenly woke up and squeezed their asses. Can you imagine, ignorant DMV in Missouri gave me DL on B1/B2 visa in 2000? I showed them Passport as proof#1 and US visa as proof#2 and ignorant officer said...you are good to go! Now 7 years later, it is written in bold over there....
ONLY US CITIZENS walk away with DMV, rest everyone go through USCIS.
Just like in a desi shop in arm pit state New Jersey I saw this..."IN GOD WE TRUST, REST EVERYONE PAY CASH"
I knew I will have issues with DMV so I paid extra 1000 to get H1B premium and retained my privilege to drive. Believe me guys....this is America.....spend more...save more!
ONLY US CITIZENS walk away with DMV, rest everyone go through USCIS.
Just like in a desi shop in arm pit state New Jersey I saw this..."IN GOD WE TRUST, REST EVERYONE PAY CASH"
I knew I will have issues with DMV so I paid extra 1000 to get H1B premium and retained my privilege to drive. Believe me guys....this is America.....spend more...save more!
Libra
09-11 07:56 PM
anandsumit, anzerraja, laknar thank you for your contributions.
rajuram
12-18 04:55 PM
so rajaram, what do you suggest? any updates on action in Jan?
I do not have updates�I wish I did. Like most people in these forums I am waiting for miracle to happen�.which probably will not happen.
To me it seems like that the members are doing there part, i.e. sending emails, making phone calls etc. But it looks like our numbers are not enough to make a change in the policy.
I do not have updates�I wish I did. Like most people in these forums I am waiting for miracle to happen�.which probably will not happen.
To me it seems like that the members are doing there part, i.e. sending emails, making phone calls etc. But it looks like our numbers are not enough to make a change in the policy.
more...
gonecrazyonh4
04-25 06:29 PM
I think you have hit the nail on the head. We are on a roller coaster ride and we need to cool our heels. The two amendments to help ease retrogression are already in two of the senator�s bills. Let's push that on through. We can later on use our imaginations to solve any �bigger" immigration issues.
Easing retrogression helps some, but not may of us who are stuck at back log centeres
Easing retrogression helps some, but not may of us who are stuck at back log centeres
xyzgc
02-14 01:05 PM
will you guys stop acting like kids?
more...
makemygc
07-06 02:07 PM
I doubt it, uscis used up 60k visas in one month just to make sure we dont get any ead, why in the world after doing all this nonsense would they accept our applications.
Well...this is the same argument we gave when we first heard about the July VB rumour in june but no one belived. I hope badluck's lawyer brings us some good luck but this is hard to believe this time.
Well...this is the same argument we gave when we first heard about the July VB rumour in june but no one belived. I hope badluck's lawyer brings us some good luck but this is hard to believe this time.
gondalguru
07-18 05:16 PM
Receipt date is not the date when the application reaches the service center. It is infact the date when your application is entered into their internal system which could be several days after the application has reached the service center.
How sure r u about this?? I think it is the other way around.
How sure r u about this?? I think it is the other way around.
more...
jung.lee
04-04 12:55 AM
:confused::confused:We cannot start a S-corp on EAD. Need to be GC holder or US Citizen.
...
Should a Corporation's owners later wish to be taxed as an S-Corporation, they would file a "Subchapter S" federal tax election (Form 2553) within 75 days of incorporating or within 75 days of the beginning of the calendar year. To do this, the Corporation would need to have less than 100 owners, all of whom must be either U.S. Citizens or permanent resident aliens ("green card" holders). Once the "S" tax election is made, the return to be filed is the 1120 "S", rather than the 1120. Whether or not you decide to be taxed as an S-Corporation, your company is still a "General Corporation" in the eyes of the state of incorporation.
...
[
But we can setup Solo or Partership or C-Corp. Don't run into legal issues by setting up S-Corp on EAD, before getting GC.
Good luck.
I am excerpting Internal Revenue Code Section 1361 below:
Internal Revenue Code
� 1361 S corporation defined.
(a) S corporation defined.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this title, the term �S corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a small business corporation for which an election under section 1362(a) is in effect for such year.
(2) C corporation.
For purposes of this title, the term �C corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a corporation which is not an S corporation for such year.
(b) Small business corporation.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this subchapter, the term �small business corporation� means a domestic corporation which is not an ineligible corporation and which does not�
(A) have more than 100 shareholders,
(B) have as a shareholder a person (other than an estate, a trust described in subsection (c)(2) , or an organization described in subsection (c)(6) ) who is not an individual,
(C) have a nonresident alien as a shareholder, and
(D) have more than 1 class of stock.
(2) Ineligible corporation defined.
For purposes of paragraph (1) , the term �ineligible corporation� means any corporation which is�
(A) a financial institution which uses the reserve method of accounting for bad debts described in section 585 ,
(B) an insurance company subject to tax under subchapter L,
(C) a corporation to which an election under section 936 applies, or
(D) a DISC or former DISC.
There is no mention here that the "resident" must be a permanent resident.
Here is an excerpt of the Federal Regulation that defines who is a "resident alien" for taxation purposes:
Reg �1.871-2. Determining residence of alien individuals.
Caution: The Treasury has not yet amended Reg � 1.871-2 to reflect changes made by P.L. 108-357
(a) General. The term �nonresident alien individual� means an individual whose residence is not within the United States, and who is not a citizen of the United States. The term includes a nonresident alien fiduciary. For such purpose the term �fiduciary� shall have the meaning assigned to it by section 7701(a)(6) and the regulations in Part 301 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration). For presumption as to an alien's nonresidence, see paragraph (b) of �1.871-4.
(b) Residence defined. An alien actually present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the length and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention, indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United States and has no definite intention as to his stay, he is a resident. One who comes to the United States for a definite purpose which in its nature may be promptly accomplished is a transient; but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended stay may be necessary for its accomplishment, and to that end the alien make his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a resident, though it may be his intention at all times to return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he came has been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United States is limited to a definite period by the immigration laws is not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this section, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Here is the relevant Federal Regulation on Proof of Residence for determining status for tax purposes:
Reg �1.871-4. Proof of residence of aliens.
(a) Rules of evidence. The following rules of evidence shall govern in determining whether or not an alien within the United States has acquired residence therein for purposes of the income tax.
(b) Nonresidence presumed. An alien, by reason of his alienage, is presumed to be a nonresident alien.
(c) Presumption rebutted.
(1) Departing alien. In the case of an alien who presents himself for determination of tax liability before departure from the United States, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(2) Other aliens. In the case of other aliens, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(d) Certificate. If, in the application of paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) or (2)(iii) of this section, the internal revenue officer or employee who examines the alien is in doubt as to the facts, such officer or employee may, to assist him in determining the facts, require a certificate or certificates setting forth the facts relied upon by the alien seeking to overcome the presumption. Each such certificate, which shall contain, or be verified by, a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, shall be executed by some credible person or persons, other than the alien and members of his family, who have known the alien at least six months before the date of execution of the certificate or certificates.
(c) Application and effective dates. Unless the context indicates otherwise, ��1.871-2 through 1.871-5 apply to determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1985. To determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984, see section 7701(b) and ��301.7701(b)-1 through 301.7701(b)-9 of this chapter. However, for purposes of determining whether an individual is a qualified individual under section 911(d)(1)(A), the rules of ��1.871-2 and 1.871-5 shall continue to apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984. For purposes of determining whether an individual is a resident of the United States for estate and gift tax purposes, see �20.0-1(b)(1) and (2) and � 25.2501-1(b) of this chapter, respectively.
In summary, I submit to you that if you work in the US for more than 6 months out of a given year, you are a resident alien, and therefore are eligible to set up an S-Corp.
Since I am still learning about this, any input/feedback/logical arguments with relevant proof/citations would be appreciated!
...
Should a Corporation's owners later wish to be taxed as an S-Corporation, they would file a "Subchapter S" federal tax election (Form 2553) within 75 days of incorporating or within 75 days of the beginning of the calendar year. To do this, the Corporation would need to have less than 100 owners, all of whom must be either U.S. Citizens or permanent resident aliens ("green card" holders). Once the "S" tax election is made, the return to be filed is the 1120 "S", rather than the 1120. Whether or not you decide to be taxed as an S-Corporation, your company is still a "General Corporation" in the eyes of the state of incorporation.
...
[
But we can setup Solo or Partership or C-Corp. Don't run into legal issues by setting up S-Corp on EAD, before getting GC.
Good luck.
I am excerpting Internal Revenue Code Section 1361 below:
Internal Revenue Code
� 1361 S corporation defined.
(a) S corporation defined.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this title, the term �S corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a small business corporation for which an election under section 1362(a) is in effect for such year.
(2) C corporation.
For purposes of this title, the term �C corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a corporation which is not an S corporation for such year.
(b) Small business corporation.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this subchapter, the term �small business corporation� means a domestic corporation which is not an ineligible corporation and which does not�
(A) have more than 100 shareholders,
(B) have as a shareholder a person (other than an estate, a trust described in subsection (c)(2) , or an organization described in subsection (c)(6) ) who is not an individual,
(C) have a nonresident alien as a shareholder, and
(D) have more than 1 class of stock.
(2) Ineligible corporation defined.
For purposes of paragraph (1) , the term �ineligible corporation� means any corporation which is�
(A) a financial institution which uses the reserve method of accounting for bad debts described in section 585 ,
(B) an insurance company subject to tax under subchapter L,
(C) a corporation to which an election under section 936 applies, or
(D) a DISC or former DISC.
There is no mention here that the "resident" must be a permanent resident.
Here is an excerpt of the Federal Regulation that defines who is a "resident alien" for taxation purposes:
Reg �1.871-2. Determining residence of alien individuals.
Caution: The Treasury has not yet amended Reg � 1.871-2 to reflect changes made by P.L. 108-357
(a) General. The term �nonresident alien individual� means an individual whose residence is not within the United States, and who is not a citizen of the United States. The term includes a nonresident alien fiduciary. For such purpose the term �fiduciary� shall have the meaning assigned to it by section 7701(a)(6) and the regulations in Part 301 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration). For presumption as to an alien's nonresidence, see paragraph (b) of �1.871-4.
(b) Residence defined. An alien actually present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the length and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention, indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United States and has no definite intention as to his stay, he is a resident. One who comes to the United States for a definite purpose which in its nature may be promptly accomplished is a transient; but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended stay may be necessary for its accomplishment, and to that end the alien make his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a resident, though it may be his intention at all times to return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he came has been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United States is limited to a definite period by the immigration laws is not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this section, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Here is the relevant Federal Regulation on Proof of Residence for determining status for tax purposes:
Reg �1.871-4. Proof of residence of aliens.
(a) Rules of evidence. The following rules of evidence shall govern in determining whether or not an alien within the United States has acquired residence therein for purposes of the income tax.
(b) Nonresidence presumed. An alien, by reason of his alienage, is presumed to be a nonresident alien.
(c) Presumption rebutted.
(1) Departing alien. In the case of an alien who presents himself for determination of tax liability before departure from the United States, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(2) Other aliens. In the case of other aliens, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(d) Certificate. If, in the application of paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) or (2)(iii) of this section, the internal revenue officer or employee who examines the alien is in doubt as to the facts, such officer or employee may, to assist him in determining the facts, require a certificate or certificates setting forth the facts relied upon by the alien seeking to overcome the presumption. Each such certificate, which shall contain, or be verified by, a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, shall be executed by some credible person or persons, other than the alien and members of his family, who have known the alien at least six months before the date of execution of the certificate or certificates.
(c) Application and effective dates. Unless the context indicates otherwise, ��1.871-2 through 1.871-5 apply to determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1985. To determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984, see section 7701(b) and ��301.7701(b)-1 through 301.7701(b)-9 of this chapter. However, for purposes of determining whether an individual is a qualified individual under section 911(d)(1)(A), the rules of ��1.871-2 and 1.871-5 shall continue to apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984. For purposes of determining whether an individual is a resident of the United States for estate and gift tax purposes, see �20.0-1(b)(1) and (2) and � 25.2501-1(b) of this chapter, respectively.
In summary, I submit to you that if you work in the US for more than 6 months out of a given year, you are a resident alien, and therefore are eligible to set up an S-Corp.
Since I am still learning about this, any input/feedback/logical arguments with relevant proof/citations would be appreciated!
rb_248
06-10 08:13 AM
Atleast EB2 is not moving back. I hope EB2 moves forward begining this October.
EB3 guys - Hope it dosen't nove back from where it was last month come October for you all.
EB3 guys - Hope it dosen't nove back from where it was last month come October for you all.
more...
brahmam
09-11 12:10 AM
Hello november
Are u sure that "http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html" is not any error ?
If yes! How come china status is not indicated explicitily as is indicated in travel.state.gov?
Does any one have previous month cut off date from this site ?
I am fairly new to this forum -Excuse my ignorence incase if this does not make any sense.
that is a consulate in India. and they dont bother to mention the chinese dates.
Are u sure that "http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html" is not any error ?
If yes! How come china status is not indicated explicitily as is indicated in travel.state.gov?
Does any one have previous month cut off date from this site ?
I am fairly new to this forum -Excuse my ignorence incase if this does not make any sense.
that is a consulate in India. and they dont bother to mention the chinese dates.
Green.Tech
06-05 12:42 PM
Just reinstated my $50 monthly recurring contributions back :)
Excellent! Thanks chanduv23...
Keep'em coming folks...
Excellent! Thanks chanduv23...
Keep'em coming folks...
more...
pbojja
09-11 04:21 PM
We need to do some thing about it so that they dont repeat the same mistake again . Lets attach a message or real calculators along with flowers and start campign ..atleast we get the attention like we did in July 07
I know we are too scared of doing any thing because they have our applications to process ...I think this is the time to step up again ...
even though I m EB2 2006 applicant , I was so frustated to see 2006 approvals , how can they do that ? Why they move to 2006 in first place raise hopes and dash them in less than weeks ...
Come on lets do some thing..
I know we are too scared of doing any thing because they have our applications to process ...I think this is the time to step up again ...
even though I m EB2 2006 applicant , I was so frustated to see 2006 approvals , how can they do that ? Why they move to 2006 in first place raise hopes and dash them in less than weeks ...
Come on lets do some thing..
reedandbamboo
09-13 07:38 PM
The USCIS!!!
more...
gclabor07
09-01 08:56 AM
Arrived in US in August 1999.
Labor started with employer A in 2002.
Changed job with Employer B in 2006.
Attorney screwed up with new labor in October 2006.
Refiled new labor in July 2007.
Missed the July 2007.
Labor started with employer A in 2002.
Changed job with Employer B in 2006.
Attorney screwed up with new labor in October 2006.
Refiled new labor in July 2007.
Missed the July 2007.
sandiboy
08-13 05:47 PM
congrats.
This is the first receipt i am noticing for an application received on July 2nd at 7:55AM and signed by R. Williams.
All other recipts so far were either received at 9 AM or 10:25 Am or so (july 2nd, 3rd, 5th etc) but none of them were at 7:55 AM.
Please see my last post couple of pages back. I also filed on Jul 2nd 7:55AM
This is the first receipt i am noticing for an application received on July 2nd at 7:55AM and signed by R. Williams.
All other recipts so far were either received at 9 AM or 10:25 Am or so (july 2nd, 3rd, 5th etc) but none of them were at 7:55 AM.
Please see my last post couple of pages back. I also filed on Jul 2nd 7:55AM
more...
paisa
08-02 05:24 PM
This link which is giving prediction for Oct, 2007 looks totally off to me.
if you see his EB3 predictions he is saying it will be close to to Jan 2007.
Where in Jan 2007 EB3 China was Aug 2002 not April 2005.
Don't know what is the reasoning behind these predictions.
Dude, HE says dates of Jan 2007 not date being Jan 2007. So the PD will be Jan8, 2003
if you see his EB3 predictions he is saying it will be close to to Jan 2007.
Where in Jan 2007 EB3 China was Aug 2002 not April 2005.
Don't know what is the reasoning behind these predictions.
Dude, HE says dates of Jan 2007 not date being Jan 2007. So the PD will be Jan8, 2003
apb
03-06 05:16 PM
Few observations based on thread postings
1) Last year around this same time not many RFE/LUD were seen.
2) Most of these cases with RFE/LUD are either EB2 around 2005-2006 or EB3 2003-2004
3) My Lawyer based out of IL confirming RFEs are in high volume and majority of these are Employment verification with Birth verification and Health letter verification as close second.
Now given the gov attitude and the current scenario it does not seem that they would be interested in pre-adjudication. There is something else that is going on. On the same note I am also seeing that people with dates which could possibly be current anytime this year are not seeing any LUD/RFE. If pre-adjudicating is the objective than these cases should have received the RFEs first.
Just my observation. Any input is appreciated.
1) Last year around this same time not many RFE/LUD were seen.
2) Most of these cases with RFE/LUD are either EB2 around 2005-2006 or EB3 2003-2004
3) My Lawyer based out of IL confirming RFEs are in high volume and majority of these are Employment verification with Birth verification and Health letter verification as close second.
Now given the gov attitude and the current scenario it does not seem that they would be interested in pre-adjudication. There is something else that is going on. On the same note I am also seeing that people with dates which could possibly be current anytime this year are not seeing any LUD/RFE. If pre-adjudicating is the objective than these cases should have received the RFEs first.
Just my observation. Any input is appreciated.
ziri
07-20 06:54 PM
During the failed CIR bill people here were praising Sen. Sessions for supporting legal immigration and I almost shed tears because deep in my heart I know how they hate immigrants both legal and illegal. The only way we can expect relief is a good comprehensive immigration bill but not from ammendments on other bills like the now defense bill.
HawaldarNaik
02-23 01:23 PM
people,
i just returned from an infopass meeting... the guy i talked to said that they recently have a directive from the DHS/USCIS that they want to separate the legal stuff from the illegal stuff and hence they are planning to adjudicate a record number of EB apps in the next quarter or two... does anyone else concur? is this true or were my ears just ringing in that meeting?
--shark
Jai HO....JAI HOOOOOOOOO....JAI HOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......
i just returned from an infopass meeting... the guy i talked to said that they recently have a directive from the DHS/USCIS that they want to separate the legal stuff from the illegal stuff and hence they are planning to adjudicate a record number of EB apps in the next quarter or two... does anyone else concur? is this true or were my ears just ringing in that meeting?
--shark
Jai HO....JAI HOOOOOOOOO....JAI HOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......
Green.Tech
06-16 05:25 PM
Stay on top!
No comments:
Post a Comment