mytrix76
01-10 01:50 PM
She can continue to work with the same employer on H1 without any issue. I did traveled back thrice using AP and renewed by H1 with the same employer twice without any issues. Though I have my H1 valid till 2010, it is invalid after my GC approval :(.
Thanks
Thank you guys.
So you mean when you came back on AP some time ago, you continued working for the same employer without switching to EAD and then were able to extend that H1 at later point without any problem?
Thanks
Thank you guys.
So you mean when you came back on AP some time ago, you continued working for the same employer without switching to EAD and then were able to extend that H1 at later point without any problem?
wallpaper Here we see Justin Bieber
Roger Binny
01-25 09:06 PM
Yeah....in 2011 again it will be viewed too late for CIR, because in 2012 they have to face presidential election and incumbent president would be preparing for 2nd term. And again there will be a promise for CIR and 2013 will be a fresh year, 2014 will be a mid-term election year, 2015 will be too late for the term as they have to face presidential elections in 2016. Cycle repeats...after 5 cycles (i.e. 20 years) we all will get GC or kicked out of queue by issuing rfe/memo or totally frustrated and gone back to our home country or we might be still waiting in line for CIR to rescue us.
Along with election cycle there will be economic cycles. When cycle-of-politics favors the CIR, cycle-of-economy unfavors CIR and vice versa. Instead of reading pages and pages of news and blogs simply read it as 'CIR will never happen'.
+1 and simply awesome.
Along with election cycle there will be economic cycles. When cycle-of-politics favors the CIR, cycle-of-economy unfavors CIR and vice versa. Instead of reading pages and pages of news and blogs simply read it as 'CIR will never happen'.
+1 and simply awesome.
Blog Feeds
02-25 07:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTXE4V12mJXgboJbsVrkBJc1wltg-Z9T_D16bYkIvQWHO_IMPoJc6NrzbGXyS-9uCg7inwNV5THIynrZLwLeGvzC6UhGPk15QnzvlQVKiAk02os2qY1LZuMUheya4aE_aKoI0nP2RbwQ0/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTXE4V12mJXgboJbsVrkBJc1wltg-Z9T_D16bYkIvQWHO_IMPoJc6NrzbGXyS-9uCg7inwNV5THIynrZLwLeGvzC6UhGPk15QnzvlQVKiAk02os2qY1LZuMUheya4aE_aKoI0nP2RbwQ0/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTXE4V12mJXgboJbsVrkBJc1wltg-Z9T_D16bYkIvQWHO_IMPoJc6NrzbGXyS-9uCg7inwNV5THIynrZLwLeGvzC6UhGPk15QnzvlQVKiAk02os2qY1LZuMUheya4aE_aKoI0nP2RbwQ0/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTXE4V12mJXgboJbsVrkBJc1wltg-Z9T_D16bYkIvQWHO_IMPoJc6NrzbGXyS-9uCg7inwNV5THIynrZLwLeGvzC6UhGPk15QnzvlQVKiAk02os2qY1LZuMUheya4aE_aKoI0nP2RbwQ0/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
2011 Justin Bieber Gets Frisky with Selena Gomez at MMVAs (PHOTOS). 3 days ago
kriskris
08-19 11:10 AM
I posted the following at another forum on this topic:
It is from this link:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9aecd408423b3f800b01aa0c83db a52
Further research showed that the BSS (Biometrics Storage System) actually went into effect on May 7, 2007.
This is from FR 17172 which you can find at:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_register&position=all&page=17172
Thanks for the info. Good to know abt this.
It is from this link:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9aecd408423b3f800b01aa0c83db a52
Further research showed that the BSS (Biometrics Storage System) actually went into effect on May 7, 2007.
This is from FR 17172 which you can find at:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_register&position=all&page=17172
Thanks for the info. Good to know abt this.
more...
HereIComeGC
12-12 04:07 PM
lol..this is funny.. are you planning to issue another bulletin from your side based on the input at IV.. chill dude.. the bulletin issue science is really some rocket science, it defies all the fundamentals of mathematics and gravity...actually its more like 6-flag ride..rush of adrenalin..swaying on both sides..oh god its making me so dizzy....
:(
Where do you get an indication prediction of another bulletin from my side from a simple question such as this? Jan 2000 is way back. It would be interesting to know how many people are still waiting from way back in 2000 in EB2 category which has traditionally been faster approvals then EB3.
:(
Where do you get an indication prediction of another bulletin from my side from a simple question such as this? Jan 2000 is way back. It would be interesting to know how many people are still waiting from way back in 2000 in EB2 category which has traditionally been faster approvals then EB3.
aau
08-08 10:34 AM
Sorry to hear about your friend's situation.
If she is qualified enough ask her to find a new employer who is willing to sponsor her a H1B.
She can transfer her status from H-4 to H1B and it will not be counted against the annual H1B quota.
Ppl please at least give a disclaimer. This sentence, said with such authority is completely false! The ONLY way you are not counted against the annual H1B quota is if you are RENEWING your existing H1B (and you have years left on it of course).
Think before you write..
If she is qualified enough ask her to find a new employer who is willing to sponsor her a H1B.
She can transfer her status from H-4 to H1B and it will not be counted against the annual H1B quota.
Ppl please at least give a disclaimer. This sentence, said with such authority is completely false! The ONLY way you are not counted against the annual H1B quota is if you are RENEWING your existing H1B (and you have years left on it of course).
Think before you write..
more...
factoryman
03-15 11:30 AM
through whom I filed my first year taxes in US, that you don't need to declare if your mail-in rebates, apartment referals don't cross USD 1600. I haven't read anything that this has changed.
Note: Once I got USD 400 for an apartment referal and I split it 50/50 with the friend.
I hope someone out there in a similar situation can help me out.
I have given my real estate agent several referrals and for each I receive a cash amount. I'm on an H1B visa, am I able to receive income from someone other than my employer?
I've searched the web and have been able to find out that this should be reported as taxable income, I'm just not sure if I can receive it due to my immigration status.
Any comments or tips are welcome.
Note: Once I got USD 400 for an apartment referal and I split it 50/50 with the friend.
I hope someone out there in a similar situation can help me out.
I have given my real estate agent several referrals and for each I receive a cash amount. I'm on an H1B visa, am I able to receive income from someone other than my employer?
I've searched the web and have been able to find out that this should be reported as taxable income, I'm just not sure if I can receive it due to my immigration status.
Any comments or tips are welcome.
2010 Justin Bieber.
panini
03-16 09:25 PM
Please can anybody help me with this?
Hi Friends,
I have a confusing situation here. Hope someone can help me with this. This is a bit complicated so please bear with me.
I fall under ROW. My first LC was filed in Feb 2005 under RIR and it was in BEC for a long time. So my company filed another LC under PERM in March 2007 which was approved very quickly and I-140 was filed for that.
Then in April 2007 the first LC (PD Feb 2005) was approved and we filed an I-140 for that as well. This was converted to PP and was approved very quickly.
Then in June 07 when my Feb 2005 PD became current we filed for 485 based on that older LC. However in the receipt notice the Priority Date box was blank which I did not notice till yesterday.
My other I-140 with PD March 2007 was pending till Jan 2008 and was approved in mid January. On the same day it was approved I noticed a soft LUD on my pending I-485 which has nothing to do with that I-140.
Now my question is, is it possible that USCIS mistakenly linked my recently approved I-140 (PD Mar 2007) to the pending I-1485? Is that possible? The reason for this worry is the soft LUD that saw on my 485 as mentioned above and the fact that my 485 receipt notice does not have a PD printed on it.
Is there anyway that I can verify which PD is linked to my 485 by contacting USCIS? I have heard of INFOPASS, would that help? If so how can I get an appointment? If as I suspect , the 485 is now linked to the wrong PD, is it difficult to have it corrected? Please let me know.
Also is it common to have the PD box blank in the 485 receipt notice?
Thanks in Advance!!!!!
Hi Friends,
I have a confusing situation here. Hope someone can help me with this. This is a bit complicated so please bear with me.
I fall under ROW. My first LC was filed in Feb 2005 under RIR and it was in BEC for a long time. So my company filed another LC under PERM in March 2007 which was approved very quickly and I-140 was filed for that.
Then in April 2007 the first LC (PD Feb 2005) was approved and we filed an I-140 for that as well. This was converted to PP and was approved very quickly.
Then in June 07 when my Feb 2005 PD became current we filed for 485 based on that older LC. However in the receipt notice the Priority Date box was blank which I did not notice till yesterday.
My other I-140 with PD March 2007 was pending till Jan 2008 and was approved in mid January. On the same day it was approved I noticed a soft LUD on my pending I-485 which has nothing to do with that I-140.
Now my question is, is it possible that USCIS mistakenly linked my recently approved I-140 (PD Mar 2007) to the pending I-1485? Is that possible? The reason for this worry is the soft LUD that saw on my 485 as mentioned above and the fact that my 485 receipt notice does not have a PD printed on it.
Is there anyway that I can verify which PD is linked to my 485 by contacting USCIS? I have heard of INFOPASS, would that help? If so how can I get an appointment? If as I suspect , the 485 is now linked to the wrong PD, is it difficult to have it corrected? Please let me know.
Also is it common to have the PD box blank in the 485 receipt notice?
Thanks in Advance!!!!!
more...
delhirocks
06-17 12:11 PM
Why do you think the bill will be passed? It is very tough. Even Senate passes it is tough in House. Also it may not be passed in current form. Even current form is passed you will get gc faster than the people who are filing I485 now. Because most of the persons like you already filed I 485 you can file by point system and you will get soon as you have 5 years US experience.
Now nothing is negative so for but we do not know what tomorrow brings. Do not assume anything till anything is confirmed
Iam in the same boat, Iam on my 5th year H1. Senthil...I guess the point the original poster is trying to make is there are few of us who will be stuck in the middle. Our LC filing date will be after May15th'07 and the 6th year H1 gets over before Oct'08.
Now nothing is negative so for but we do not know what tomorrow brings. Do not assume anything till anything is confirmed
Iam in the same boat, Iam on my 5th year H1. Senthil...I guess the point the original poster is trying to make is there are few of us who will be stuck in the middle. Our LC filing date will be after May15th'07 and the 6th year H1 gets over before Oct'08.
hair -ieber-9861174-400-598
eldrick
08-16 02:49 PM
I guess we dont have a choice but to pay.
Thank you all for your advise.
One more thing, no form G-28 was given to me to sign. What does this mean?
Thank you all for your advise.
One more thing, no form G-28 was given to me to sign. What does this mean?
more...
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.
hot 110606 11 Justin Bieber picks up a MTV Movie Award. Justin Bieber
pansworld
07-07 04:26 PM
But at least they will be alerted to a problem. Maybe someone will take notice. Maybe they wont. If not we will figure something else out...my two cents
more...
house Justin Bieber News - Justin
chanduv23
10-09 05:40 PM
I am in.
Welcome Amma :), please help "needhelp" - she is really in need of help :)
Welcome Amma :), please help "needhelp" - she is really in need of help :)
tattoo Justin Bieber performs during a promotional event for fans in Tokyo on
yabadaba
05-21 07:29 AM
was this when you were entering canada?
more...
pictures Justin Bieber#39;s Fans Hold Bieber Parade In Denmark: quot;
lonedesi
01-09 01:57 PM
Is anyone's I-140 being processed at Vermont Service Center? Any updates from that center, regarding processing, transfer of case from VSC to TSC/NSC? Please post updates.
dresses Just who is Justin Bieber?
sen
02-21 08:02 AM
Guys,
I have a similar question. I have both H1 visa (valid till Feb 09) and approved AP document. I am planning to use my H1 during my re-entry into US. Do i still need to present/inform about my AP to POE officer?
Please advise.
I have a similar question. I have both H1 visa (valid till Feb 09) and approved AP document. I am planning to use my H1 during my re-entry into US. Do i still need to present/inform about my AP to POE officer?
Please advise.
more...
makeup 20110217FD024 Justin Bieber
virald
10-05 11:13 PM
our paroles were updated on the website as being mailed on sept26, we still haven't received them but we did receive ead cards which were approved on sept 28. No sign or notice of AP yet
Did your lawyer receive AP? I am sure you must have inquired but, just :confused:curious.
Did your lawyer receive AP? I am sure you must have inquired but, just :confused:curious.
girlfriend Justin Bieber rang in his
Leo07
12-03 04:44 PM
DREAM ACT is very much a moral issue. Doing the right thing for innocent kids, who had no say in their fate until this date. All must support DREAM with heart & soul.
While doing "Right" thing, we must be very careful to NOT penalize the people who are legally standing in line. These Legal immigrants and their kids who had already waited 10 years in line could become illegal any day.These kids who are here legally will need another DREAM act 2 or 3 years from now. ONLY RECAPTURE can save the "Right" thing from being the true Right or justice for ALL.
Why do we need Recapture more than DREAM ACT or with DREAM ACT?
What makes recapture an important issue as mush as DREAM ACT issue?
Is the question asked to me when I communicated with someone in favor of DREAM act. We need good answers when asked this question.
I was looking at posts to respond back and write to all reporters writing on DREAM ACT. Can someone post convincing answers?
While doing "Right" thing, we must be very careful to NOT penalize the people who are legally standing in line. These Legal immigrants and their kids who had already waited 10 years in line could become illegal any day.These kids who are here legally will need another DREAM act 2 or 3 years from now. ONLY RECAPTURE can save the "Right" thing from being the true Right or justice for ALL.
Why do we need Recapture more than DREAM ACT or with DREAM ACT?
What makes recapture an important issue as mush as DREAM ACT issue?
Is the question asked to me when I communicated with someone in favor of DREAM act. We need good answers when asked this question.
I was looking at posts to respond back and write to all reporters writing on DREAM ACT. Can someone post convincing answers?
hairstyles Bieber tickets
gc28262
07-21 09:33 AM
IMO it looks like USCIS is trying to find some reason to deny an H1B petition. Fragomen doesn't have the guts to defend their clients before USCIS since they underwent some investigation.
They are just trying to play safe.
They are just trying to play safe.
chanduv23
04-22 11:58 AM
There is a high possibility that more RFEs are being issued as there is a lot of background processing going on. Th economy is down and there might be instructions from top to review cases closely.
A denial can happen when RFEs are not responded in time.
From what I have been seeing on forum - all RFEs that people got for i 485 are not something difficult to answer.
If you look at RFEs for h1bs - some are very complicated and these days Attorneys are charging around 3K for responding to RFE with no guarantee
A denial can happen when RFEs are not responded in time.
From what I have been seeing on forum - all RFEs that people got for i 485 are not something difficult to answer.
If you look at RFEs for h1bs - some are very complicated and these days Attorneys are charging around 3K for responding to RFE with no guarantee
GIC
01-09 03:07 PM
Extrapolating the Einstein equation E =mc2 I get the following results :
EB3 June 01
EB2 Dec 2000
Extrapolating like ... combing E= MC2 and the theory of relativity it is evident that there will be a lot of folks converting energy to mass (read fat) for a relatively very long period of time???
EB3 June 01
EB2 Dec 2000
Extrapolating like ... combing E= MC2 and the theory of relativity it is evident that there will be a lot of folks converting energy to mass (read fat) for a relatively very long period of time???
No comments:
Post a Comment