learning01
05-24 03:04 PM
I wrote to a lot of anchors, newsmen. Got 2 replies. One was from Bloomberg, the financial TV channel. I co-ordinated with IV media team and they took it from there and a nice story came two weeks ago, as you can see from a link at 'IV in News' or here (http://www.immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_weblinks&task=view&catid=19&id=52)
sertasheep,
I had emailed 4-5 different reporters (Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Dallas, Houston) who had recently published articles on immigration. The reporter from Tulsa emailed me back the same day (within a few hours) saying that he is interested in the "legal immigration" angle and would like to pursue it if I was willing to be interviewed and be photographed. I set up a time and place for the interview and the photo.
I had two conditions that the reporter agreed to:
1) He would not use my employer's name, and
2) After he finalizes his story, he would read back all my quotes to me to ensure no misquotations.
He graciously complied with both my requests. I was surprised to see front page coverage. I sent a Thank you email to the reporter after the article was published. He told me that various people (legal immigrants) from the Tulsa area had contacted him after reading the article and wanted to know more about Immigration Voice.
Let me know if I can be of further help.
Good luck,
Salil
sertasheep,
I had emailed 4-5 different reporters (Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Dallas, Houston) who had recently published articles on immigration. The reporter from Tulsa emailed me back the same day (within a few hours) saying that he is interested in the "legal immigration" angle and would like to pursue it if I was willing to be interviewed and be photographed. I set up a time and place for the interview and the photo.
I had two conditions that the reporter agreed to:
1) He would not use my employer's name, and
2) After he finalizes his story, he would read back all my quotes to me to ensure no misquotations.
He graciously complied with both my requests. I was surprised to see front page coverage. I sent a Thank you email to the reporter after the article was published. He told me that various people (legal immigrants) from the Tulsa area had contacted him after reading the article and wanted to know more about Immigration Voice.
Let me know if I can be of further help.
Good luck,
Salil
wallpaper david beckhams new hairstyle
immi_grant
06-25 05:14 PM
Thank you both for your insight !!
I will discuss this with my attorney ASAP.
I will discuss this with my attorney ASAP.
.jpg "david beckham 2011 tattoo.")
Ramba
04-22 02:19 PM
My lawyer got the RFE notice yesterday....
My LC / I-140 stated that I am an "Electrical Engineering Technician" due to PW concerns at the time of application but my H1-B application said "Applications Engineer (Chemicals Group)". But the job duties were exactly the same word for word. I'm not sure if that is causing the problem. I am being paid significantly more than the LC / 1-140 wage currently. So, lack of ability to pay is not an issue. I have also been continuously employed by the same organization. I have not sought a different employer ever since I applied for my GC.
Please reply with your thoughts.
Though, it appears as regular employment verification letter, there may be catch in it due to what you explained above. Though you were an "engineer" in H1B, your employer applied as a "technician" in green card application (LC/140) to overcome pre-wailing wage issue. This is not good one if they found out, as the technicians can not be in H1B visa. You can not argue I will be technician after getting GC. Also, you can not use AC21 as "engineers" and "technicians" are not similar occupations.
My LC / I-140 stated that I am an "Electrical Engineering Technician" due to PW concerns at the time of application but my H1-B application said "Applications Engineer (Chemicals Group)". But the job duties were exactly the same word for word. I'm not sure if that is causing the problem. I am being paid significantly more than the LC / 1-140 wage currently. So, lack of ability to pay is not an issue. I have also been continuously employed by the same organization. I have not sought a different employer ever since I applied for my GC.
Please reply with your thoughts.
Though, it appears as regular employment verification letter, there may be catch in it due to what you explained above. Though you were an "engineer" in H1B, your employer applied as a "technician" in green card application (LC/140) to overcome pre-wailing wage issue. This is not good one if they found out, as the technicians can not be in H1B visa. You can not argue I will be technician after getting GC. Also, you can not use AC21 as "engineers" and "technicians" are not similar occupations.
2011 David Beckam
GC_1000Watt
12-15 11:42 AM
Answers in Red Ink Below....
Thanks a lot for your reply. I really appreciate if you can aswer the following:
Can I transfer my H1B to another company (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/#) once my old employer has appealed the H1B denail notice?
Nope. Your old H1 has already expired. So it has to be altogether a new H1 B application even though the old one is in appeal.
if the appeal on denial goes in my favor then whether I am going to get extension with I-94 or without I94?
I don't know the answer to this. According to my knowledge, once you apply for new H1 B & its approved, the old one is of no use even though the the appeal is in your favor. But its better check with the lawyer on this & if you get the answer to this one, pls. do let me know too.
Again, I am not a lawyer. All the above answers are based on personal experience. All The best ....
Thanks again. I will let you know but I believe since the old I-94 is already expired the extension will be given without I-94.
Also do you know if the same company (which has filed for my H1B extension and got denial) can file new H1B for me?
Thanks a lot for your reply. I really appreciate if you can aswer the following:
Can I transfer my H1B to another company (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/#) once my old employer has appealed the H1B denail notice?
Nope. Your old H1 has already expired. So it has to be altogether a new H1 B application even though the old one is in appeal.
if the appeal on denial goes in my favor then whether I am going to get extension with I-94 or without I94?
I don't know the answer to this. According to my knowledge, once you apply for new H1 B & its approved, the old one is of no use even though the the appeal is in your favor. But its better check with the lawyer on this & if you get the answer to this one, pls. do let me know too.
Again, I am not a lawyer. All the above answers are based on personal experience. All The best ....
Thanks again. I will let you know but I believe since the old I-94 is already expired the extension will be given without I-94.
Also do you know if the same company (which has filed for my H1B extension and got denial) can file new H1B for me?
more...
freddy22
07-20 07:24 AM
my son was charged with criminal mischeif 4th and a petty larceny charge - as a YOUTHFUL OFFENDER and under NY Law and US Law this is NOT a deportable reason for the INS to start proceedings - in othert words crimes charged under YOUTHFUL OFFENDER are not grounds for deportation or INS charges so is my research - am I right?
a_yaja
06-25 10:34 AM
I though such contracts are illegal in US?....It is employment at will.....that means they can kick you out anytime or you can leave anytime....maybe someone can clarify
It is "at will". But employers can have what is known as a "termination" clause. This clause can be anything (as long as it is legal):
- You cannot quit and join a competitor within 2 yrs
- You have to return all money paid for relocation if you quit within one yr
- You have to pay all costs associated with GC processing if you quit within 2 yrs
It looks like "2 yrs" is the max. time allowed by the law.
As long as the terms are reasonable, it will stand in the court of law. However, stuff like "you cannot do any programming for 2 yrs after quitting" will not hold in the court of law, because the agreement is preventing you from earning a livelyhood - which is illegal.
It is "at will". But employers can have what is known as a "termination" clause. This clause can be anything (as long as it is legal):
- You cannot quit and join a competitor within 2 yrs
- You have to return all money paid for relocation if you quit within one yr
- You have to pay all costs associated with GC processing if you quit within 2 yrs
It looks like "2 yrs" is the max. time allowed by the law.
As long as the terms are reasonable, it will stand in the court of law. However, stuff like "you cannot do any programming for 2 yrs after quitting" will not hold in the court of law, because the agreement is preventing you from earning a livelyhood - which is illegal.
more...
gene-O
10-20 05:57 PM
Still looking for a knowledgeable response specifically to the questions asked.
2010 david beckham 2011 tattoo.
cagedcactus
05-03 06:59 PM
"senator_levin@levin.senate.gov" to me
show details Apr 30 (3 days ago)
Dear Mr. Amin:
Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration and border security. I appreciate receiving your views on these important issues.
Our immigration system is broken and needs reform. I believe an effective immigration policy must include comprehensive border security and comprehensive immigration reform. We must secure our borders against real threats from terrorism and protect U.S. workers, while preserving the freedoms and principles on which our nation was founded. We must address reforms realistically, stem the tide of illegal immigrants entering the country and be fair to those who are here legally.
I support comprehensive border security reform. I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L.109-289) that appropriated $1.83 billion to construct 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border of our country. I also supported an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief (P.L.109-13) that provided $390 million to hire an additional 650 border patrol agents, 250 immigration investigators, and 168 immigration enforcement agents and deportation officers, as well as to fund an additional 2,000 detention beds for immigration enforcement purposes.
I believe any reform must protect U.S. workers. For this reason, I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fair Minimum Wage Act (H.R.2) that would bar employers who violate immigration laws by hiring undocumented workers from receiving federal government contracts for up to 10 years. The Fair Minimum Wage Act passed the Senate on February 1, 2007, and must now be considered by a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. I believe it is important to ensure that employers hire only those legally eligible to work and that employees are treated fairly. I support a broad-based Electronic Employment Verification (EEV) system, which builds upon the existing voluntary pilot program, to increase the reliability of employment authorization checks. In the 109th Congress, I supported a number of worker protection amendments to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S.2611). I voted in favor of an amendment that would have established a true prevailing wage for all occupations to ensure that U.S. workers� wages are not lowered as a result of the guest worker program, and I supported an amendment that would have required employers to make good faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers first. S.2611 passed the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 62-36. Unfortunately, S.2611 was blocked by the House because of opposition to the immigration provisions in the Senate bill. The bill was not passed before the end of the 109th Congress.
Comprehensive immigration reform must remove the �magnet� that has attracted millions of people to cross the border illegally. We should not provide amnesty, but instead permit currently undocumented workers to earn the right to obtain legal status over a long period of time, under restrictive conditions, including being required to pay fees and back taxes. These individuals would be required to apply through the same immigration process as everyone else and take their place in line behind all those whose applications are pending. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate toward effective solutions that address our nation�s real immigration problems. Without a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, our current problems with illegal immigration will likely continue.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
CC to senator_levin
show details 7:36 pm (1 minute ago)
Respected Sir,
I wanted to bring to your attention the woes of immigrants who are legally here in U.S. Specifically, the high-skilled workers who are experiencing decade-long waits to get Green Cards (the employment based Green Cards). There are approximately half a million such people in U.S. today whose lives are in limbo as they wait to get their Green Cards. I encourage you to visit http://immigrationvoice.org, an organization comprising of such people who are lobbying the Congress to help get some relief urgently.
The focus of immigration reform has solely been on illegal immigration. What is not so well understood is that the fate of legal immigrants has been tied with that of the illegal immigrants (because there is just one bill that the Congress will debate - CIR/STRIVE). It is ironic that if this bill does not pass, legal immigrants would be left hanging in the dark again, even when there is bi-partisan support for their cause!
The waiting times for getting an employment-based (EB) Green Card (GC) are increasing each day for nationals of all countries. But especially hard-hit are people from India and China, whose waiting times are expected to increase to 10-15 years, if the current trend continues. The demand for EB-GC keeps increasing because over the last decade an average of about 100,000 skilled workers have joined the U.S. work-force each year (using H-1B visa, and graduating foreign students), but only 50,000 new employment-based Green Cards are issued. U.S. issues 140,000 EB GC but even family members are counted-off from this quota, which thus effectively reduces to about one-third. Therefore, each year about 50,000 skilled workers join the queue for a Green Card.
Once the wait for a Green Card starts, all major life-decisions are influenced by the Green Card application process. Decisions about traveling abroad, marrying, investing, kids' education, and changing cities are then based on the stage in which one's GC application is. The biggest impact of the wait is on the person's professional career. Once the process starts, changing jobs usually means re-filing for a GC, implying that the person starts from the end of the line again. Even promotions within the same company are not without risks, as any change in job descriptions necessitates refilling the application. So a person waiting for a GC is expected to remain in the same job with the same company and without any substantial increase (or decrease) in pay! The skilled worker therefore lives life in constant limbo.
The psychological impact of being stuck and being treated as less than equal, even while paying all taxes (including SS and Medicare, to which they are not even entitled to without becoming permanent residents) is immense.
Your help is very much needed to eliminate this unfair backlog and reform the system, so that no innocent and law abiding person should suffer anymore. Your kind reply is very valuable to me.
I appreciate your time and help.
Regards,
CC
Above is the email conversation beween me and Senetor Levine. He seems to be in support for Legal immigration, but is against Amnesty.
My reply here is basically a nice written post by a fellow member here (Eternal_hope).
So credit for writing goes to him.
A similar reply was sent to senetor Debbie Stabenow (Michigan too)
Please comment......
show details Apr 30 (3 days ago)
Dear Mr. Amin:
Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration and border security. I appreciate receiving your views on these important issues.
Our immigration system is broken and needs reform. I believe an effective immigration policy must include comprehensive border security and comprehensive immigration reform. We must secure our borders against real threats from terrorism and protect U.S. workers, while preserving the freedoms and principles on which our nation was founded. We must address reforms realistically, stem the tide of illegal immigrants entering the country and be fair to those who are here legally.
I support comprehensive border security reform. I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L.109-289) that appropriated $1.83 billion to construct 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border of our country. I also supported an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief (P.L.109-13) that provided $390 million to hire an additional 650 border patrol agents, 250 immigration investigators, and 168 immigration enforcement agents and deportation officers, as well as to fund an additional 2,000 detention beds for immigration enforcement purposes.
I believe any reform must protect U.S. workers. For this reason, I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fair Minimum Wage Act (H.R.2) that would bar employers who violate immigration laws by hiring undocumented workers from receiving federal government contracts for up to 10 years. The Fair Minimum Wage Act passed the Senate on February 1, 2007, and must now be considered by a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. I believe it is important to ensure that employers hire only those legally eligible to work and that employees are treated fairly. I support a broad-based Electronic Employment Verification (EEV) system, which builds upon the existing voluntary pilot program, to increase the reliability of employment authorization checks. In the 109th Congress, I supported a number of worker protection amendments to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S.2611). I voted in favor of an amendment that would have established a true prevailing wage for all occupations to ensure that U.S. workers� wages are not lowered as a result of the guest worker program, and I supported an amendment that would have required employers to make good faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers first. S.2611 passed the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 62-36. Unfortunately, S.2611 was blocked by the House because of opposition to the immigration provisions in the Senate bill. The bill was not passed before the end of the 109th Congress.
Comprehensive immigration reform must remove the �magnet� that has attracted millions of people to cross the border illegally. We should not provide amnesty, but instead permit currently undocumented workers to earn the right to obtain legal status over a long period of time, under restrictive conditions, including being required to pay fees and back taxes. These individuals would be required to apply through the same immigration process as everyone else and take their place in line behind all those whose applications are pending. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate toward effective solutions that address our nation�s real immigration problems. Without a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, our current problems with illegal immigration will likely continue.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
CC to senator_levin
show details 7:36 pm (1 minute ago)
Respected Sir,
I wanted to bring to your attention the woes of immigrants who are legally here in U.S. Specifically, the high-skilled workers who are experiencing decade-long waits to get Green Cards (the employment based Green Cards). There are approximately half a million such people in U.S. today whose lives are in limbo as they wait to get their Green Cards. I encourage you to visit http://immigrationvoice.org, an organization comprising of such people who are lobbying the Congress to help get some relief urgently.
The focus of immigration reform has solely been on illegal immigration. What is not so well understood is that the fate of legal immigrants has been tied with that of the illegal immigrants (because there is just one bill that the Congress will debate - CIR/STRIVE). It is ironic that if this bill does not pass, legal immigrants would be left hanging in the dark again, even when there is bi-partisan support for their cause!
The waiting times for getting an employment-based (EB) Green Card (GC) are increasing each day for nationals of all countries. But especially hard-hit are people from India and China, whose waiting times are expected to increase to 10-15 years, if the current trend continues. The demand for EB-GC keeps increasing because over the last decade an average of about 100,000 skilled workers have joined the U.S. work-force each year (using H-1B visa, and graduating foreign students), but only 50,000 new employment-based Green Cards are issued. U.S. issues 140,000 EB GC but even family members are counted-off from this quota, which thus effectively reduces to about one-third. Therefore, each year about 50,000 skilled workers join the queue for a Green Card.
Once the wait for a Green Card starts, all major life-decisions are influenced by the Green Card application process. Decisions about traveling abroad, marrying, investing, kids' education, and changing cities are then based on the stage in which one's GC application is. The biggest impact of the wait is on the person's professional career. Once the process starts, changing jobs usually means re-filing for a GC, implying that the person starts from the end of the line again. Even promotions within the same company are not without risks, as any change in job descriptions necessitates refilling the application. So a person waiting for a GC is expected to remain in the same job with the same company and without any substantial increase (or decrease) in pay! The skilled worker therefore lives life in constant limbo.
The psychological impact of being stuck and being treated as less than equal, even while paying all taxes (including SS and Medicare, to which they are not even entitled to without becoming permanent residents) is immense.
Your help is very much needed to eliminate this unfair backlog and reform the system, so that no innocent and law abiding person should suffer anymore. Your kind reply is very valuable to me.
I appreciate your time and help.
Regards,
CC
Above is the email conversation beween me and Senetor Levine. He seems to be in support for Legal immigration, but is against Amnesty.
My reply here is basically a nice written post by a fellow member here (Eternal_hope).
So credit for writing goes to him.
A similar reply was sent to senetor Debbie Stabenow (Michigan too)
Please comment......
more...
immig4me
04-14 08:17 AM
Problem is they do not report it on froum or tracker, and leave the forum for ever... because they know there will be a lot of people asking questions or making them miserable by trying to prove them wrong... go figure...
Be + ive...
True Story!!!:cool:
Very true! They will count their blessings and forget the bad taste of long waits.......
I am not sure that gc's without pds happen though
Be + ive...
True Story!!!:cool:
Very true! They will count their blessings and forget the bad taste of long waits.......
I am not sure that gc's without pds happen though
hair david beckam torrent
jnraajan
04-07 02:45 PM
Folks,
My mother-in-law applied for a B2 Visa and she was granted a 10 year/Multiple entry visa. At the POE, IO gave a 6months stay on her I-94 form. So far so good!
We wanted to extend her B2 for another two months so that we can go around a bit during Summer months. We applied for an extension ( I-539 Application to extend Non-immigration status) and we received an acknowledgement from VSC.
The question is, VSC is processing I-539 for August 07 and I dont think we would be getting her approval before her I-94 expires at the end of this month.
Some folks might have gone thru this situation before. Based on your experiences, can you pls. let me know what are the possible options here?
Rgds,
gcisadawg
Keep the receipt in hand. She can leave when she is ready to leave. If VSC responds or has an RFE after her departure, you can respond to that RFE and also provide proof that she has left the country already.
But, the fact is, USCIS does not take it kindly when people on B2 Visa extends beyond the 6 months. She may have trouble coming back a second time. Please be advised of this.
My mother-in-law applied for a B2 Visa and she was granted a 10 year/Multiple entry visa. At the POE, IO gave a 6months stay on her I-94 form. So far so good!
We wanted to extend her B2 for another two months so that we can go around a bit during Summer months. We applied for an extension ( I-539 Application to extend Non-immigration status) and we received an acknowledgement from VSC.
The question is, VSC is processing I-539 for August 07 and I dont think we would be getting her approval before her I-94 expires at the end of this month.
Some folks might have gone thru this situation before. Based on your experiences, can you pls. let me know what are the possible options here?
Rgds,
gcisadawg
Keep the receipt in hand. She can leave when she is ready to leave. If VSC responds or has an RFE after her departure, you can respond to that RFE and also provide proof that she has left the country already.
But, the fact is, USCIS does not take it kindly when people on B2 Visa extends beyond the 6 months. She may have trouble coming back a second time. Please be advised of this.
more...
JSimmivoice
01-22 08:21 PM
I was working for a Company A with whom I recently had my petition extended until this year Aug. Then I got laid off and then changed to Company B in Dec 09. But since then until now which is 6 weeks my current employer (his lawyer) has not filed my H1 to USCIS and going to do it shortly. But then Company A again want to rehire me now. One good thing is my Current I-797 petition is with Company A which is not revoked and is valid. But the bad news is they say I've been out of H1 Status since I left them in Dec and that would be a problem for them and for me to rehire me.
The Options Company A is giving me is to go out and get restamping done based on the current petition I have and agree/confess to Consulate that I was out of H1 status for 6 weeks and was under unauthorized employment (which I did not intent to break law as I only came to know a week back that my new employer has not filed the H1) and ask their forgiveness to come out clean. But under the current H1 weather I really don't want to risk going for restamping is one and revealing that I was out of status for 6 weeks which leave my chances of restamping slim.
So I'm really looking for an answer here from someone who either has went through my situation or someone with experience or a professional advice. Just let me know how can I join back Company A legally without going out of US to restamp?
The Options Company A is giving me is to go out and get restamping done based on the current petition I have and agree/confess to Consulate that I was out of H1 status for 6 weeks and was under unauthorized employment (which I did not intent to break law as I only came to know a week back that my new employer has not filed the H1) and ask their forgiveness to come out clean. But under the current H1 weather I really don't want to risk going for restamping is one and revealing that I was out of status for 6 weeks which leave my chances of restamping slim.
So I'm really looking for an answer here from someone who either has went through my situation or someone with experience or a professional advice. Just let me know how can I join back Company A legally without going out of US to restamp?
hot Alexa Chung hairstyles,
acecupid
09-06 08:33 PM
Read something interesting on TOI..
NRIs treated as Not Required Indians! - India - NEWS - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/NRIs-treated-as-Not-Required-Indians/articleshow/4979439.cms)
Indubhai Amin, a non-resident Indian (NRI) settled in the UK earns interest income of Rs 3 lakh on his non-resident ordinary account bank deposit in
India in the current FY 2009-10. Enjoying his personal exemption limit of Rs 1.60 lakh and the eligible deduction of Rs 1 lakh u/s 80C, Amin is comfortable paying income tax of Rs 4,000 in the first slab of 10 per cent on his effective taxable income of Rs 40,000.
Flat tax of 20% and 30%
A huge shock awaits Amin and millions of NRIs, in regard to taxation of their interest and investment income and capital gains earned in India, proposed to be treated under the draft Direct Tax Code as "income from special sources."
In 2011-12, on the same interest income of Rs 3 lakh, Amin will be required to pay a hefty tax of Rs 60,000 at the flat rate of 20 per cent, without being eligible to claim any basic exemption or other deduction, as provided under rule three of the First Schedule to the Code.
Moreover, all capital gains earned by a non-resident will attract a flat tax of 30 per cent, irrespective of the amount of capital gains. While a resident Indian will be required to pay tax of Rs 3.84 lakh on his taxable income of Rs 25 lakh, an NRI earning equivalent capital gains will be called upon to pay almost double tax of Rs 7.5 lakh.
Hair-raising drafting
New section 13 (2) provides that such �special income� shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Ninth Schedule, the drafting of which is literally hair-raising. It provides that the amount of accrual or receipt shall be computed as the taxable income, and no loss, allowance or deduction shall be allowed, as the same shall be presumed to have been granted. The only exception in this regard, in respect of capital gains arising from the transfer of equity shares or units of equity oriented mutual fund chargeable to STT, is quite amusing, as it stands redundant in view of the proposal to abolish STT (a classic instance of incoherent drafting).
The draftsman does not seem to have realized the harsh implications. It means that if an NRI sells a capital asset purchased for Rs 10 lakh at Rs 30 lakh, he will be required to pay tax of Rs 9 lakh at 30 per cent on the gross sale consideration of Rs 30 lakh without any deduction even for the cost of acquisition of Rs 10 lakh (not to mention any benefit of indexation on the same).
Determination of residential status
The residential status of an individual under the Code is proposed to be determined as per the current norms. However, the status of "not ordinarily resident" (NOR) is proposed to be eliminated. Despite the above, Clause 24 of the Sixth Schedule has still provided for exemption in respect of interest earned on foreign currency deposits in the case of NOR. Poor drafting indeed!
The Code has proposed to retain the current exemptions availed by a non-resident in case of interest earned on NRE and FCNR deposits with banks.
Special exemption for returning NRIs
A useful exemption has been provided in case of income earned outside India, if it is not derived from a business controlled from India, in the financial year in which the returning NRI becomes an Indian resident and the immediately succeeding financial year. However, the benefit of the said exemption would be available, only if such individual was a non-resident for nine years immediately preceding the financial year in which he becomes a resident.
Wealth-tax liability for NRIs
Proposed Section 102 of the Code provides for wealth tax liability in the case of the value of all global assets of an individual or HUF. However, an exemption has been provided in case of the value of assets located outside India in case of an individual who is not a citizen of India or an individual or HUF not resident in India. Hence, while returning NRIs who are non-citizens will enjoy wealth-tax exemption for their overseas assets, NRIs with Indian citizenship becoming residents will attract wealth-tax liability on such assets held abroad.
Illogical exemption under wealth-tax
Talking about wealth tax, the Code prescribes an exemption in respect of any house or plot of land belonging to an individual or HUF, if it is acquired before April 1, 2000. It is difficult to understand the logic as to why this exemption has been denied in all cases where such immovable property is acquired after March 31, 2000!
Proposals That Will Hurt the Global Indian Sentiment
Flat Rate of Tax
20% flat tax on interest & other investment income
30% flat tax on all capital gains
Apart from 20% & 30% TDS on above, TDS at a baffling rate of 35% prescribed on all residual income
No Personal Exemption
No personal exemption or deduction allowed in computing the above income treated as �income from special sources�.
Weird Interpretation
Poor drafting leads to such a weird interpretation that transfer of a capital asset may attract 30% tax on gross sale consideration.
What Discrimination!
Ironical but true! Non-Indian sportspersons, say Ricky Ponting or Shoaib Akhtar, required to pay a concessional tax of 10% on their game, advertisement and column earnings in India, thus enjoying a more privileged tax status than our own sons of the soil living abroad.
NRIs treated as Not Required Indians! - India - NEWS - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/NRIs-treated-as-Not-Required-Indians/articleshow/4979439.cms)
Indubhai Amin, a non-resident Indian (NRI) settled in the UK earns interest income of Rs 3 lakh on his non-resident ordinary account bank deposit in
India in the current FY 2009-10. Enjoying his personal exemption limit of Rs 1.60 lakh and the eligible deduction of Rs 1 lakh u/s 80C, Amin is comfortable paying income tax of Rs 4,000 in the first slab of 10 per cent on his effective taxable income of Rs 40,000.
Flat tax of 20% and 30%
A huge shock awaits Amin and millions of NRIs, in regard to taxation of their interest and investment income and capital gains earned in India, proposed to be treated under the draft Direct Tax Code as "income from special sources."
In 2011-12, on the same interest income of Rs 3 lakh, Amin will be required to pay a hefty tax of Rs 60,000 at the flat rate of 20 per cent, without being eligible to claim any basic exemption or other deduction, as provided under rule three of the First Schedule to the Code.
Moreover, all capital gains earned by a non-resident will attract a flat tax of 30 per cent, irrespective of the amount of capital gains. While a resident Indian will be required to pay tax of Rs 3.84 lakh on his taxable income of Rs 25 lakh, an NRI earning equivalent capital gains will be called upon to pay almost double tax of Rs 7.5 lakh.
Hair-raising drafting
New section 13 (2) provides that such �special income� shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Ninth Schedule, the drafting of which is literally hair-raising. It provides that the amount of accrual or receipt shall be computed as the taxable income, and no loss, allowance or deduction shall be allowed, as the same shall be presumed to have been granted. The only exception in this regard, in respect of capital gains arising from the transfer of equity shares or units of equity oriented mutual fund chargeable to STT, is quite amusing, as it stands redundant in view of the proposal to abolish STT (a classic instance of incoherent drafting).
The draftsman does not seem to have realized the harsh implications. It means that if an NRI sells a capital asset purchased for Rs 10 lakh at Rs 30 lakh, he will be required to pay tax of Rs 9 lakh at 30 per cent on the gross sale consideration of Rs 30 lakh without any deduction even for the cost of acquisition of Rs 10 lakh (not to mention any benefit of indexation on the same).
Determination of residential status
The residential status of an individual under the Code is proposed to be determined as per the current norms. However, the status of "not ordinarily resident" (NOR) is proposed to be eliminated. Despite the above, Clause 24 of the Sixth Schedule has still provided for exemption in respect of interest earned on foreign currency deposits in the case of NOR. Poor drafting indeed!
The Code has proposed to retain the current exemptions availed by a non-resident in case of interest earned on NRE and FCNR deposits with banks.
Special exemption for returning NRIs
A useful exemption has been provided in case of income earned outside India, if it is not derived from a business controlled from India, in the financial year in which the returning NRI becomes an Indian resident and the immediately succeeding financial year. However, the benefit of the said exemption would be available, only if such individual was a non-resident for nine years immediately preceding the financial year in which he becomes a resident.
Wealth-tax liability for NRIs
Proposed Section 102 of the Code provides for wealth tax liability in the case of the value of all global assets of an individual or HUF. However, an exemption has been provided in case of the value of assets located outside India in case of an individual who is not a citizen of India or an individual or HUF not resident in India. Hence, while returning NRIs who are non-citizens will enjoy wealth-tax exemption for their overseas assets, NRIs with Indian citizenship becoming residents will attract wealth-tax liability on such assets held abroad.
Illogical exemption under wealth-tax
Talking about wealth tax, the Code prescribes an exemption in respect of any house or plot of land belonging to an individual or HUF, if it is acquired before April 1, 2000. It is difficult to understand the logic as to why this exemption has been denied in all cases where such immovable property is acquired after March 31, 2000!
Proposals That Will Hurt the Global Indian Sentiment
Flat Rate of Tax
20% flat tax on interest & other investment income
30% flat tax on all capital gains
Apart from 20% & 30% TDS on above, TDS at a baffling rate of 35% prescribed on all residual income
No Personal Exemption
No personal exemption or deduction allowed in computing the above income treated as �income from special sources�.
Weird Interpretation
Poor drafting leads to such a weird interpretation that transfer of a capital asset may attract 30% tax on gross sale consideration.
What Discrimination!
Ironical but true! Non-Indian sportspersons, say Ricky Ponting or Shoaib Akhtar, required to pay a concessional tax of 10% on their game, advertisement and column earnings in India, thus enjoying a more privileged tax status than our own sons of the soil living abroad.
more...
house Victoria Beckham Hairstyle For
Bytes4Lunch
03-07 09:25 AM
Visa stamping interview --> First week of Feb
Was asked to submit technical questionnaire and other documents as per 221g which I did
Received email confirmation that they have "received" the documents and sending it to DOS for further processing and will email me in sometime
After waiting for one month and no sign of the elusive email, I flew in to LAX and used my Advanced Parole successfully. I had not cancelled my pending H1B application.
The POE officer was very polite unlike the officer at the Mumbai consulate. They didn't ask me even "one" question about my pending h1B application or the H1b in general, had to wait in the secondary inspection room while they looked up my information. Was out in 20-25 mins.
When I asked the POE officer what happens to the H1, he said it gets void. But as per earlier INS memos(Cronin Memo) and threads on forums, this is not the case right ? although I didn't start a discussion on this with him, because I didn't want to confuse him. My I-94 has AOS written on it which probably puts me in a Parolee status.
Now my question is:
---------------------------------------
I really would like to get back on the H1 status, so when the email arrives from Mumbai, does anyone know if its possible to withdraw the application .
Then arrange for the h1B visa stamping interview at say Tijuana, Mexico. Wouldn't I be in the PIMS system now (since I would have received the email from the mum consulate) and make the stamping faster at the regular timelines. I have my multiple entry AP as backup, so I can be back if I need to.
I'd really appreciate if anyone can shed any light on this, I really hate to work on my EAD and would like to continue on the H1 as a backup for my entire family's sake.
Was asked to submit technical questionnaire and other documents as per 221g which I did
Received email confirmation that they have "received" the documents and sending it to DOS for further processing and will email me in sometime
After waiting for one month and no sign of the elusive email, I flew in to LAX and used my Advanced Parole successfully. I had not cancelled my pending H1B application.
The POE officer was very polite unlike the officer at the Mumbai consulate. They didn't ask me even "one" question about my pending h1B application or the H1b in general, had to wait in the secondary inspection room while they looked up my information. Was out in 20-25 mins.
When I asked the POE officer what happens to the H1, he said it gets void. But as per earlier INS memos(Cronin Memo) and threads on forums, this is not the case right ? although I didn't start a discussion on this with him, because I didn't want to confuse him. My I-94 has AOS written on it which probably puts me in a Parolee status.
Now my question is:
---------------------------------------
I really would like to get back on the H1 status, so when the email arrives from Mumbai, does anyone know if its possible to withdraw the application .
Then arrange for the h1B visa stamping interview at say Tijuana, Mexico. Wouldn't I be in the PIMS system now (since I would have received the email from the mum consulate) and make the stamping faster at the regular timelines. I have my multiple entry AP as backup, so I can be back if I need to.
I'd really appreciate if anyone can shed any light on this, I really hate to work on my EAD and would like to continue on the H1 as a backup for my entire family's sake.
tattoo Facial Hair Styles for Every
andy garcia
05-21 02:09 PM
Are you sure? it is going to be too much pain....
Check this memo: Elimination of Form I-688B (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ElimI688B_081806R.pdf)
Check this memo: Elimination of Form I-688B (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ElimI688B_081806R.pdf)
more...
pictures #39;Foto victoria eckam / hair
sathyaraj
12-17 03:57 PM
Identify what is the job code in your LC and try to compare the new job duties in the similar category. If you happen to fall within the same group then you are fine. like within 15.****
http://online.onetcenter.org/link/summary/15-1051.00
Try to identify the job code of ur new job, then you will be able to compare.
Hire an attorney before taking any major descisions.
http://online.onetcenter.org/link/summary/15-1051.00
Try to identify the job code of ur new job, then you will be able to compare.
Hire an attorney before taking any major descisions.
dresses david beckam tattoo.
paulinasmith
08-05 12:54 PM
Hi guys, I am trying to understand this whole process and was wondering if you could help me out.
I'm a CPA working for a Big4 in the US for h1-B. I have 2 years of experiences (1 with the same company). I am not from Europe. I have the following 2 questions:
1. What can I expect in terms of waiting for a GC if my employer were to file today? It's a huge firm and submits many GC sponsorship requests per year. I belieave 700 were submitted in 2009.
2. Would my CPA/Lvl 2 CFA Certification as well as my membership in professional organizations and performance bonuses (highlighting exceptional ability) bump me up to EB2 if EB3 is not current?
Thank you for your input.
Even if u are born in Europe the EB-3 priority date of India and Europe are equal/same. EB-3 no longer depend upon your place of Birth.
I'm a CPA working for a Big4 in the US for h1-B. I have 2 years of experiences (1 with the same company). I am not from Europe. I have the following 2 questions:
1. What can I expect in terms of waiting for a GC if my employer were to file today? It's a huge firm and submits many GC sponsorship requests per year. I belieave 700 were submitted in 2009.
2. Would my CPA/Lvl 2 CFA Certification as well as my membership in professional organizations and performance bonuses (highlighting exceptional ability) bump me up to EB2 if EB3 is not current?
Thank you for your input.
Even if u are born in Europe the EB-3 priority date of India and Europe are equal/same. EB-3 no longer depend upon your place of Birth.
more...
makeup victoria echam hairstyles
GKBest
08-03 08:25 PM
You can always file Motion to open the denied case.You also need to go through the reasons for denial , which you will be knowing soon in USCIS response.Without knowing the reason for denial , it will be pure speculation suggesting future course of action.You can continue to work untill your case is being adjudicated.
From the way I understand if the case is denied, you cannot work but you are authorized to stay if your appeal has been decided in your favor. However, some lawyers say that you can work with the H1 employer since the decision is not yet final. So which one is correct?
From the way I understand if the case is denied, you cannot work but you are authorized to stay if your appeal has been decided in your favor. However, some lawyers say that you can work with the H1 employer since the decision is not yet final. So which one is correct?
girlfriend david beckam tattoo.
kumarc123
01-15 06:23 PM
I called but I got the immigration subcommittee's VM. I left a message with my name and the reason I was calling.
Thanks for calling, try to call again, and ask the receptionist to transfer to the the person who handles the immigration department. Tell him the need for recapture visa bill, as you plan to buy homes. And how this bill will help in towards minimizing the housing crisis and the downfall of the economy.
Please I humbly request all IV members to call her office.
Thank you
Thanks for calling, try to call again, and ask the receptionist to transfer to the the person who handles the immigration department. Tell him the need for recapture visa bill, as you plan to buy homes. And how this bill will help in towards minimizing the housing crisis and the downfall of the economy.
Please I humbly request all IV members to call her office.
Thank you
hairstyles david beckham 2011 calendar
jsb
02-11 10:28 AM
i lostmy legal in 2002 (b2). during 2003 i won gc lottery . we did al paper work till last step.my lawyer toll me dont go couse deportation. In 2005 my employer apply gc for me (em3) In April 2006 I-140 aproved.now we waiting for priority date..
My question to you .. my lottery case priority date can be use for my eb3 case?
If you won a GC lottery, which many of us didn't, what is the problem. Didn't GC lottery supposed to get you a GC? Why did you need your employer to sponsor you again if you already won a GC lottery? We are puzzled.
My question to you .. my lottery case priority date can be use for my eb3 case?
If you won a GC lottery, which many of us didn't, what is the problem. Didn't GC lottery supposed to get you a GC? Why did you need your employer to sponsor you again if you already won a GC lottery? We are puzzled.
nk2
09-22 02:43 PM
Made a contribution today and also made 1 member
dartkid31
05-18 12:13 AM
I think you are getting slightly confused here. The thing under discussion in this thread has always existed as a clause in the bill and is nothing new. The F4 is a separate provision which was struck down today. The 3 year for STEM provision still exists separate. Please have a look at the details of the bill. It should be available somewhere on this website.
Has there already been a vote to kill F4? If so, do you know what the amendment nummber is? Thanks.
Has there already been a vote to kill F4? If so, do you know what the amendment nummber is? Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment