If the US has no officially recognized language, what&#39;s stopping me from submitting forms in other, potentially much less widespread languages? As the title states, I realized today the USA doesn't have an officially recognized language, which implies (to me) that I can submit forms in any language if I so chose - the most obvious example being my tax forms. Is this the case? Does this happen, and if so, what's stopping me from submitting them in e.g. Chinese? What about something like Cuneiform or Latin? Are the courts or IRS or whomever required to accept such forms? Conversely, if I'm required to translate them into English, what legal basis is there for such requirements?
Nothing specific and nation-wide prevents you from doing this, but you might be stopped in a specific way in a specific location. You may even be allowed or required to do so, for example RCW 26.21A.630 says (in the context of child support issues) &quot;A record filed with a tribunal of this state under this article must be in the original language and, if not in English, must be accompanied by an English translation&quot;. Courts generally have the power to impose rules on what they deal with, so if you want to file to be the executor of an estate where the will is written in ǂHoa (an obscure language), you have to submit both the original and an acceptable translation into English. Since you are asking about forms and not testimony, you can almost rely on the fact that with a bit of effort, a document in a foreign language can be translated into English (the language which courts presumptively can all handle). There are laws codifying practices for foreign language interpretation which are designed for courtroom translation but are applicable to document translation, which boils down to a certification process for the translator. Since there almost certainly is not a court-certified ǂHoa translator in Washington State, or elsewhere in the US, a will written in ǂHoa would have to be translated by a non-certified translator. The IRS has a page outlining its language services, which requires them to facilitate tax-paying for those with limited English ability. If you speak English fluently but want to file your tax form in Guraginya for fun (which uses a different alphabet including numerals like ፺), they will almost certainly tell you to stop being a smart alec and you'll have to re-file. You could sue, and you would lose. Youcould win if you really didn't have any other means of filing your taxes (and you could avail yourself of translator requirements at your trial, to explain that you don't know any English at all and can't even write ordinary numbers). Generally, there are no explicit laws that compel using English, thought some states may have specific language laws. The fact of not knowing English cannot deprive you of your rights, under US law. The supreme court has avoided deciding on the constitutionality of Arizona's requirement that English be the sole official language.
The common law is permissive That is to say that, in a common law jurisdiction, the law is about what you must not do rather than about what you must do. Now, particular statutes may be phrased as requiring certain actions but, if you read them the “common law way” to coin a phrase, they are really imposing sanctions for doing the prohibited thing that falls outside those parameters. Since there is no legal prohibition on using multiple names (simultaneously or sequentially) you are free to do so. Now, there are common law prohibitions of, for example, fraud or tax evasion. So, if you use different names for the purpose of doing those prohibited things, then that is illegal but it is the specific criminality that is sanctioned, not the use of the alias in perpetrating it. The UK has a law that makes it a crime to not register the birth of a child. It also imposes some (and by most country’s standards, very few) restrictions on the name a child can be registered under. But there is no legal obligation on the child or their parents to use the registered name in any particular circumstances. There may be difficulties (amounting to impossibility in some cases) in obtaining a passport, opening a bank account, or claiming social security under a non-registered name but that is due to the necessity to identify the individual for which the name serves as a proxy. However, outside the requirements of specific statutes or administrative procedures, the common law position is that your name is what people call you and you identify as your name. The second part is important - I have been called dickhead on many occasions but I do not consider it to be my name. The UK has a patronymic tradition for surnames so, usually, on marriage, the female adopts the surname of the male and that, through the marriage certificate, becomes her registered name. However, it is extremely common for women to continue to use their original (and now not registered) name in their professional life and her new name in her private life. This can be problematic. My wife, has on server all occasions been refused permission to board a plane because the ticket (booked by others) was in her maiden name - a name for which she has no official identification. However, that’s a procedural problem - she didn’t do anything illegal.
Yes Companies can own companies - that’s what subsidiaries are. On a practical level, you know this is true because you actually have an example. Companies House would not have allowed its registration (barring error) if it was illegal. Why can’t it open a bank account? Banks (or any other business) can choose who they will and won’t do business with. Unless it’s discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic, it’s not illegal. Since juridical persons don’t have protected characteristics (apart from nationality) it’s virtually impossible to illegally discriminate against them.
Any written communication is generally admissible Subject to all the normal rules for admissibility of course. For texts between you and a third party the major issue that springs to mind is relevance. As in, how are they relevant to the dispute between you and this man? If they are not, your lawyer should have objected to them on this basis, however, its too late now. I'm curious as to how he obtained these and whether it was done legally or not. Illegality will not affect their admissibility as the exclusionary rule doesn't apply to civil matters, however, it does speak to the gentleman's character.
The reason that you are being asked to comply with a US law is because PayPal, a US company, is required to comply with US laws. If you do not comply, it is likely that they will be non-compliant and subject to sanctions. For more background, FATCA reporting is used to identify businesses that a company does business with. In this scenario PayPal does business with you, 'Kenorb Inc', and so must prove to the regulatory agencies that you are not a US based company, hence the need for the W-8BENE. In a similar way - people from other countries cannot simply ignore UK law when dealing with your business. As for your quotes - they are not contradictory.
Because the ordinance does not say &quot;and from each entrance&quot;, it cannot be interpreted to mean that the signs must both be visible and readable anywhere in the area as well as being visible and readable from the entrance. The use of distinct prepositions in the conjuncts means that the notice requirement can be satisfied by different signs: it's not that a sign has to have both properties.
The registration office does not have access to your GEZ bill. They cannot deny you deregistration, but also cannot tell you whether your debts are settled. You might prefer to clarify this matter with the GEZ in writing rather than over phone, since you can more easily machine-translate an email or letter.
International organizations such as the UN are typically treated similar to foreign governments, and thus enjoy various privileges. One consequence is that typically, income from employment by these organizations is not subject to taxation by the host countries where the employee lives or carries out their work. However, the details depend very much on the tax laws in that host country. The employee might still be required to file taxes, but would then likely be able to declare the income as tax-free under the corresponding provision of the national tax law. This usually also depends a lot on the treaties which created the international organisation. For example, the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations contains an explicit tax exemption for UN officials, though not necessarily for regular employees. As an example for how a country treats employees of international organization, the IRS has guidance regarding US tax law here. Other countries tend to have similar rules, albeit with less accessible online documentation :)