How does UN employment work legally? If you're an employee of the UN, how does that work legally? Is your employer on the tax form written as the UN? Does it have a tax ID? Which country do you pay tax to? Is it treated like a corporation? If you're an employee of the UN, and for some reason the UN decided that it's just not going to pay your salary, what can you do? As far as I know the UN has legal immunity, so... In that situation would you have no legal recourse?
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 :)
NAL, but I used to work for the IRS. GS-0592-08, AUSC W/I CSCI (for non-feds, that means General Sector, series 0592 grade 8, Tax Examiner, Austin Service Center, Division -&gt; Wage &amp; Investment, Section -&gt; Collections Services and Compliance Operations. Yeah, no joke.) And I wanted to add some insider insight to help clarify some of the thoughts already shared here. First off, I feel like clarification is needed because lay people get especially confused about this very, very easily: the IRS is an agency exactly like the FBI, except the IRS falls under the US Dept of Treasury and the FBI falls under the US Department of Justice. Like all federal agencies, both the FBI and the IRS exist to enforce federal law. They're both law enforcement agencies. And again, the difference is the kind of law they enforce: the FBI enforces federal criminal law. The IRS enforces federal tax law. The IRS does not need (and wouldn't accept, not that the FBI would try - completely different jurisdictions) any help whatsoever from the FBI in enforcing tax law, including criminal tax law. The IRS does not disclose tax information; the confidentiality of taxpayer information is more intense than HIPAA. Literally nothing short of an act of Congress or a certain breed of court order can compel the IRS to disclose federal income tax information. (Not going to get into charitable orgs in this answer, but even then, the IRS doesn't make those filings public - the orgs themselves do, public self-reporting is a requirement of maintaining their tax-exempt status.) The FBI didn't get Al Capone; the IRS did. For tax evasion. Anyway, in answer to the OP's question: THE IRS IS NOT ACTUALLY CONCERNED WITH THE ORIGIN OF THE INCOME AS LONG AS YOU PAY TAXES ON IT. Anything and everything beyond federal tax law falls outside the IRS's scope. Which is why uou can write quite literally anything you want on line 80 (or whatever it is these days) of your 1040A (occupation) (technically, as long as you don’t perjure yourself, not that anybody's counting.) It's pretty much just a footnote anyway. As a tax preparer, you can skip it, and even if that line weren’t specifically, explicitly protected by the 5th Amendment, it wouldn't matter if it weren’t, because the IRS does not disclose federal income tax information with any other agencies or organizations under any circumstances. As long as whatever you put there is factually accurate - if you fill it out at all. You can answer in Klingon; nobody cares (unless you write something funny, which we actually appreciate btw ;) ), because it's not necessary to process your return. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and accurately list all amounts and sources of income I received during the tax year. Declaration of preparer (other than taxpayer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge. &quot;Sources of income&quot; means &quot;all the money you got paid, as best as you could record it&quot; - if you got paid cash waiting tables (tips) or slinging heroin, the IRS doesn't care as long as you report the income. You can write &quot;slinging heroin&quot; (it's the IRS, not the DEA) but tax preparer would probably pick the code for &quot;inside sales.&quot; When the IRS participates in joint task forces, it is because the IRS's ability to track money is second to none (and even then, IRS involvement in task forces are usually related to terrorism.) The IRS occasionally assists other agencies with criminal law enforcement efforts, but the IRS doesn’t prosecute them and doesn’t involve confidential tax information in them. For example, as far as the IRS is concerned, if you embezzle a hundred grand and then launder it, the IRS’s criminal jurisdiction they’d be pursuing you for would be underreporting (and probably tax evasion.) If you embezzle a hundred grand, but file and pay your quarterly withholding (I never worked in Underreporter but I'm pretty sure fraud would be considered self-employment since by definition it's off the books) you’re in compliance with the IRS’s criminal jurisdiction. And yes, you have the right to itemize deductions, but not every expense is necessarily allowable - for example, some expenses have limits on how much can be deducted. So even if an expense was related to earning income, it doesn't mean you can necessarily claim it, or all of it; gas mileage driving to places you rob at gunpoint, sure - bullets? I guess if hunters or game tourism or shooting ranges / instructors can deduct bullets, a hitman could too, but I’d expect to get flagged for audit to see how much of what is actually permissible. But even if some or all of those deductions ended up being disallowed and you wound up with a balance due, as long as the IRS determines that you were not intentionally seeking to avoid or circumvent tax law, it wouldn’t be a criminal [tax] matter. I'd have to look, but if parking tickets aren't allowable, I strongly doubt bail, fines, restitution, etc. in conjunction with being criminal convictions associated with earned income would also not be allowable. The only way other agencies would gain visibility into this would be if someone were dumb enough to go to court at the conclusion of an audit, at which point the tax situation would become a matter of public record. To illustrate the lengths to which the IRS seeks to facilitate voluntary taxpayer compliance in meeting their obligations, when I was at the IRS in the mid-2000s, there was a program for drug dealers to file quarterly withholding as self-employed using a sort of special sticker book provided by the IRS to use in lieu of receipts. If a professional tax preparer or tax planner were assisting someone who discloses, or starts to disclose that this is actually illegal source income - the tax preparer just puts in a code for whatever comes closest to describing the occupation that earned the most income and the taxpayer doesn't have to be specific as long as they are not untruthful. (Honestly, you really can write whatever you want. Nobody cares. People put stuff down like &quot;pirate&quot; and &quot;bridge troll&quot; as well as stuff like &quot;slinging heroin&quot;, &quot;bookie,&quot; &quot;racket,&quot; &quot;al qaeda&quot;, etc.)
health care checks. Hotel check in. Employment? maybe. Background Checks? doesn't matter. It actually does matter, because there is sometimes a law governing the documents that may be shown for a given purpose. For example, the I-9 form, for verifying someone's eligibility to accept employment in the US, has a well defined lists of documents that an employer must accept, and the passport card is one of those documents. A similar situation exists for Transportation Security Administration screening of air passengers. On the other hand, laws concerning proof of age for buying various products will vary from state to state, and retailers may or may not be required to accept any particular document. In the case of alcohol sales in North Carolina, for example, there is a brochure that lists "acceptable forms of identification" on page 17 and explicitly says that "passports may be in the booklet or card form." But that does not seem to create a legal requirement for the retailer to accept passport cards, because page 19 outlines the retailer's right to refuse, saying among other things that "there is no legal recourse by a customer who you have refused a sale." US passport law (22 USC Chapter 4 and 22 CFR parts 51 and 53) doesn't have anything to say about the passport's or passport card's role as an identification document; it speaks only of the more specific role as a travel document. So the general answer to your question, appears to be no. There is no law generally requiring people to accept a passport card if they also accept passports or driver's licenses. But in most specific instances, there may be a general requirement such as "government-issued identification" that includes passport cards in addition to passports and driver's licenses, or there may be a list that explicitly includes passport cards along with driver's licenses and passports.
The company probably owes U.S. and state corporate income taxes because income from services performed in the United States are usually considered "effectively connected" with the United States. The fact that the servers are located in the U.S. is pretty much irrelevant, relative to the fact that the services are performed while located in the United States. I can't think of a single tax case that has ever turned on the location of the servers in a company. Unlike a U.S. company, a foreign company is not taxed by the U.S. on its worldwide income, nor is the individual, a non-resident alien (having an F-1 visa rather than a green card) taxes on the individual's worldwide income. But, a non-U.S. person is still taxed on income that is effectively connected with the United States. Generally speaking income from property is not effectively connected with the United States merely because it is managed by someone located in the U.S., so if the company had owned an apartment in Brazil that it received rental income from, for example, that would not be subject to U.S. taxation. Also income from intangible property (like interest payments on loans or dividends on publicly held stock) is generally not subject to U.S. taxation if paid to a non-resident, non-citizen of the U.S. But, generally speaking, income from the performance of services is taxable in the place where the services are performed. For example, Colorado can impose state income taxes on income earned by a Texas baseball player while playing at a stadium in Denver. The lack of a salary or employee status shouldn't change the fact that the income received by the company from performance of services in the U.S. is effectively connected with the United States. When the owner performs services in the U.S., the company is performing services in the U.S. and so it is subject to taxation in the U.S. Dividend payments from the offshore company probably wouldn't be subject to U.S. taxation in this scenario, but the company itself would be subject to corporate income taxes in the U.S. from the profits it earned from the services performed in the U.S.
"Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights" on the website you linked to is very clear that the Charter of Fundamental Rights only means the EU institutions can't discriminate based on age, and that EU law is not allowed to be age discriminatory. It doesn't mean that individual acts of age discrimination are illegal: In contrast, the provision in Article 21(1) does not create any power to enact anti-discrimination laws in these areas of Member State or private action, nor does it lay down a sweeping ban of discrimination in such wide-ranging areas. Instead, it only addresses discriminations by the institutions and bodies of the Union themselves, when exercising powers conferred under the Treaties, and by Member States only when they are implementing Union law. The practice of youth and senior discounts is older than the charter of fundamental rights. The charter will be interpreted in the light of continuity, it definitely wasn't the intention to outlaw price discrimination. There are specific laws that make price discrimination based on certain principles legal, e.g. UK equality act: Age discrimination - when discrimination is allowed in the provision of goods or services
If you falsely claim to be a US citizen in order to obtain work, vote in a US election, or receive public benefits in the United States, you can be deported, lose a green card, or be banned from ever obtaining a green card or US Visa. See https://dyanwilliamslaw.com/2015/02/why-lying-about-being-a-u-s-citizen-can-stop-you-from-becoming-a-permanent-resident-and-what-you-can-do-to-overcome-this-obstacle/ and https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-falsely-claiming-us-citizen-can-deportable.html for more detail. This very much includes checking an incorrect box on an I-9 form when obtaining a job, although that is not usually considered a "benefit". In fact incorrect I-9 statements are a common source of such bans. However, if a person lies in response to a merely curious question, when no government or private benefit, and no job eligibility is involved, the ban should not, as far as I can see, come into effect, nor should that be grounds for deportation, or indeed any criminal or immigration action. If a person falsely claims to be a US Citizen merely to obtain social status or personal importance or reputation, that would seem not to be a crime under the doctrine of U.S. v. Alvarez, nor should it lead directly to any immigration consequences, althoguh I suppose it might draw attention to someone who is deportable on other grounds.
They can still be sued - they just can’t be found liable For example, as an adjudicator, I have immunity for acts and omissions done in good faith as an adjudicator. A suit could be brought alleging lack of good faith and/or acting as other than an adjudicator. If these were proved (and barring corruption it’s a very high bar) the adjudicator would be liable. However, adjudicators are often joined with the claimant (usually the Respondent is the plaintiff) and the ANA (Authorised Nominating Authority - the organisation that appointed the adjudicator, who also have immunity) not so they can be held liable but so that they can be subpoenaed and forced to give evidence - if they aren’t parties to the suit they can refuse to do this. My standard response when this happens is to write to the court saying “I submit to the decision of the court save as to costs” meaning I am not going to contest anything unless you try to make me pay costs - which I don’t have immunity from.
When you breach a contract, you can get sued in local court, and if you don't show up to defend yourself, default judgment will be entered against you. Then the aggrieved party will have to collect, but the court in Washington (to invent a jurisdiction) can't enforce an order against a person in Norway (to invent another jurisdiction). So the aggrieved party would need to take enforcement of the judgment to the Norwegian courts. In the actual case of Norway, this is fairly simple, you just call an attorney in Norway to do the paperwork. It might be harder if the other jurisdiction is Belarus. If you return to the US, even if there is a money judgment against you for the rent owed, you will not be arrested for that debt. Depending on the state (about half of the states), you might be arrested for failing to comply with a court order to pay the debt. The difference lies in refusing to comply with a court order, versus simply having a debt. The State Department conveniently lists the reasons for denying a visa. Owing money or having an uncollected judgment against you is not one of the possible reasons, in fact even having been ordered by a court to pay, ignoring the order, and the court issuing an arrest warrant does not make you inadmissible.