Are foreign *assets* (not income), pre-dating moving to the US, taxable? A person who immigrated to the US 10 years ago still has two bank accounts abroad that she did not close. No money has been added to the accounts since then, there was no activity and no interest generated, i.e. there was no income. She has not reported the foreign accounts on a FBAR form nor on her tax returns, although it represents more than $10,000 total; she would like to regularize her situation. The specific question is: will these assets be considered as income by the IRS, even though the account money predates her becoming a US person? Even if there was no income, is it possible that the person still had to pay other taxes related to foreign assets (i.e. does the IRS tax assets, not only income?)
will these assets be considered as income by the IRS, even though the account money predates her becoming a US person? No. Even if there was no income, is it possible that the person still had to pay other taxes related to foreign assets (i.e. does the IRS tax assets, not only income? There are fines related to failure to disclose foreign bank accounts which are quite draconian. The fines are high out of concerns about money laundering and terrorism funding, without a legislative, IRS or judicial recognition that these issues can arise in far less nefarious circumstances. But the fines are not truly taxes. They are fines for failure to file an information tax return or make a disclosure that is required by statute. If the disclosure had been made in a timely manner, there would have been no actual tax due and it is not illegal to have the accounts, so long as they are disclosed. Resolving an irregularity of this kind is quite tricky, can go very badly if done incorrectly (e.g. hundreds of thousands of dollars of civil tax fines or worse and possible impairment of immigration status), and calls for specialist international tax administration counsel. I've encountered a case like this in my own practice and referred it out to specialist counsel rather than handling myself, even though I regularly handle less demanding international tax questions in my practice. This is a &quot;brain surgery&quot;/&quot;rocket science&quot; class difficulty problem as far as lawyer expertise requirements are concerned.
I have extensive domain knowledge of your question. In short, your plan won't work. Here's why... Corporate Taxation and the double taxation problem Corporations are taxed in the U.S. as separate legal entities (unless they meet certain exceptions described below). Therefore, if your corporation does not avoid being taxed as a separate legal entity, your plan will fail due to the “double taxation” problem. I.e, Your corporation will be taxed first at the corporate level. Then after you pay the corporate tax, YOU WILL BE TAXED AGAIN as an individual, when you take the money out of the corporation via income or dividends. Or if you decide to leave the money in the corporation, there is an excess retained earnings penalty. Subchapter-S election and "flow-through" entities The way to avoid the double taxation problem is to make a &quot;Subchapter-S election” for your corporation. This &quot;S-election&quot; will cause the corporation to be treated as a “flow through” entity for taxation purposes — allowing the owners to be taxed at the individual level only. The IRS imposes additional limitations and restrictions on these &quot;S-corporations&quot; and their ownership structures. Limiting things like the number of owners the corporation can have etc. The problem is that even with this subchapter S election, your concept still won’t work. This is because ALL your income will &quot;flow through” all your corporations (via IRS Form K-1) and accrue to you at the individual level. Therefore, nullifying the “compartmentalization of income” effect you were trying to achieve. Conclusion In short, your plan won’t work. There are too many rules in place to effectively close the loophole you imagined might be. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or an accountant. This answer is not legal or accounting advice. Please consult the proper professionals for appropriate professional advice.
Legally there is no problem. What you say is protected speech under the 1st Amendment as long as it is either true or a matter of opinion. However Ron Beyer's comment is a good one; while legal this sounds very inadvisable. You would be far better off hiring a lawyer. The Mr Dicks of this world make money from the widespread fear of legal action. He will probably fold as soon as he sees a letter from a lawyer threatening a lawsuit. Until then stalling doesn't cost him anything so he will carry on doing it. BTW, don't delay. I don't know about the US, but over here in the UK there are a number of ways that people like Mr Dick can make it hard to collect. Don't give him time to play shell games with his assets.
When selling a residential property in the UK, you normally fill out a form called the TA10 Fittings and Contents Form, which outlines everything in the property included in the sale. This isn't a legal requirement, but your conveyancing solicitor will normally recommend it. Anything else left in the property after the completion of the sale is still, legally, a possession of the previous owner and the new owner is obliged to inform them of these possessions in writing. So, you do have to return it (and most people in such situations do return the possessions without question). However, if the presence of those possessions means you can't be reasonably expected to move into the property, then you can claim compensation from the previous owner for alternative accommodation (i.e. a hotel) until the situation is rectified. Or if the previous owner refuses to collect the possessions, you can likewise claim compensation for the costs of disposing of it. Alternatively, if they do want the possessions back, but take their time getting it, you can charge them fair storage costs.
You should really investigate the legally correct way to deal with the estate and the transfers of the assets; if not, you could have considerable legal and tax liability in the future with the bank (if they flag and investigate the transfers due to the death of the account holder and the size of the transfers) and the IRS (inheritance taxes), as well as other possible heirs who are not yet identified or notified of the death. Probate laws differ greatly according to jurisdiction, so either find a lawyer or Google for free or low cost legal help in your city/county/state in order to learn how to administer the estate in a legally sufficient way to protect everyone involved. Or go to the local county courthouse and inquire. It may not take much effort or cost much in legal fees, and it's a good investment of research and time to prevent legal and tax issues in the future.
Businesses only keep transaction data for as long as they have to For a live loan account they will keep transactions while the account is live and then for as long as local law dictates (it varies but 7 years is typical). For transaction accounts it will generally be only for as long as required by law - typically what is required by tax law (again 7 years is typical) or as long as you can sue them under statues of limitations (2-5 years). Banks (and other businesses) do not keep records indefinitely. 10 years seems more than necessary.
First, refusing to provide proof of income to a lender cannot possibly be a crime per se. Lying about your income to get the loan might be fraud, but whether you agree to provide proof to the lender later cannot be a crime. Second, the loan agreement may contain language which obligates you to provide proof of income as requested. If the lender did not verify income up-front, this is not unlikely. If so, refusal to provide such proof would entitle the lender to any available remedies. It's possible that a loan agreement could entitle the lender to pursue specific performance which, if granted, might compel you to provide proof (or some alternative if this is impossible) or be held in contempt of court for refusing to comply with a court order. More likely, the lender would be able to require accelerated repayment of what they're owed. If, based on your refusal to provide proof of income, the lender suspects you committed fraud when you applied for the loan, they can file a police report and press charges. If the prosecutor thinks they have a case and chooses to pursue that charge, proof of income (at least, when you applied for the loan) might have to come out as part of your defense. This is all very speculative. Most likely you can just ignore the lender's request and avoid missing any payments. I wouldn't expect any favors from this lender going forward.
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.