newacct

Note that even if you are not a resident for US tax purposes, you are subject to US income taxes (federal and state) on the income you get from the work you performed while physically in the US.

If you are a resident for US tax purposes, then you are subject to US income taxes on your worldwide income.

RICH

True but lets not be Alarmist-the liabilities do not amount to much $ unless you earn milliions.The issue above is about being truthful about the situation,

Pulaski

But a penalty of a few $000's can still be very painful if, like most people, your income and expenses are nearly matched.

RICH

Penalty for what? I know that is how they got Al Capone but seriously tax on income is about 10% overall. Who evades that?

RICH

I am officially done arguing with Pulaski. Good night.

mikelincs

If it's anything like the UK than their are many hundreds of tax evaders through different means, from the man working cash-in-hand to the millionaire hiding his money in offshore accounts, one is illegal, and, unfortunately the other is legal. But the penalty of hiding a few hundred dollars, or pounds, of non taxed money, and getting caught will be many, many times the amount that has been hidden.

Nutmegger

In the OP's case, I think the most important factor is being seen to be squeaky clean so as to obtain the visa to legally move to the US and marry. OP, visit the marriage section of the forum to look at your options and get things moving. I'm afraid that, as others have said, you must accept the fact that you and your intended will be spending time apart over the next year or so.

Pulaski

No, it actually isn't.
That's not true either, the penalties in both cases are intended to inflict similar amounts of pain - you pay the tax evaded and enough of a penalty on top to discourage you from doing it again.

Of course it's a free world, and you can believe what you like, but believing that "the rich" are allowed to evade taxes by "hiding" money is no more supported by facts than a flat earth is.

Are there investments available with a tax advantage. Yes, there are, for investors at all levels - private pensions and 401ks, ISAs and PEPs, are tax-advantaged investments. There are other investments, larger ones, that the governments allow to be tax free (or reduced) because the government, and by extension the public deems to be for the social good, such as investing in a business in a depressed area that creates job, or the building of low-income housing. If you think that such projects "should" be managed by "the government", then you're free to believe that, but from an economics perspective they are equivalent: taxes are either spent or forgone, and the public benefits from there being jobs or housing available. The political left like to describe that as a "loophole", ignoring the fact that it is a mutually convenient deal - the investor reduces his tax bill and, in this case (as described above) the public get jobs or housing.

I have long suspected that the political left objects to tax-advantaged investments because in order to benefit you have to first of all be a tax payer, and from the perspective of the left, that means that such investments are necessarily "unfair".