Does anyone know if:

1) Is it legal to put a CMRA down as a “principal place of business” even though no records are kept there? I called the PA Dept. of State and all they said was “it can’t be a PO Box” but the gentleman on the phone said he didn’t see why a CMRA would be a problem as long as there was a street address. I researched the PA statute and it does use the term “principal place of business” which in other places of the PA code talks about records being held there. So this may be something that is technically true, but the state looks the other way regarding. How about using a storage unit facility as the principal place of business? The problem is that most of them don’t allow mail delivery. I called a “virtual office” provider (REGUS) but they don’t offer “lockers” where you can store anything.

2) There are a lot of fictitious name filings I found on the Pennsylvania web site that are “owned” by LLCs WITHOUT any individuals listed. Even the public notice ads don’t always list the INDIVIDUALS, only the LLC! Again, this seems to defy the actual form which requires “individuals interested in the business” to be listed as well as entities, but the Dept. of State seems to file them anyway. Is there a big risk just putting the entity name down on the form and not the individual’s name?

Where can I get a straight answer to these questions? The last attorney I went to charged me $150 for an initial consultation and wants another $1000 to form a “legal opinion” regarding it!

... Well, Jim, it so happens that I just spoke to John, my attorney, three hours ago about a small-business idea I am checking out.

As far as I know, ALL states requires records to be kept at the "principal place of business" including the operating agreement, tax returns etc. My plan is to rent an office in the Canary Islands where such records could be kept in a locked filing cabinet.

Mail could also be received there, if necessary, perhaps even telephone calls.

Is this legal? John will check it out when he has time, perhaps in a week or so.

Kevin's question at #8112 is clearly not looking for textbook answers like "oh, you need a tax lawyer" or "oh, you are required to report worldwide income". No sheet, Sherlock! I'm sure Kevin already knows that stuff.

On the contrary, it seems to me that his situation is a classic case of so-called Tax Avoision, a possible gray area between avoidance (legal) and evasion (illegal) where certain things COULD be accomplished by thinking outside of the box a little bit, and maybe assuming some level of risk by NOT doing things completely by the book, as The Man always wants us to do things.

If Kevin follows his plan, what is likely to happen? Does the company making the payment to his lawyer have to report something to the IRS? Is it reported as the law firm's income? Or will his lawyer's office have to report something on Kevin? If the money goes from the law firm to a bank account out of the country that is in his wife's maiden name (which, possibly, means that technically it is not 100% exactly "in Kevin's control", or in other words, it's like a nominee account) and if this foreign bank does not make reports to the American IRS, how likely is it, really, that IRS will notice anything about this? And even then, IF Kevin really does report it as income as he slowly takes the money back into the USA banking system, has he actually "evaded" tax or just legally "avoided" it, and paid less tax on the lower income amount per year?

His scenario is interesting to me (I may be in a similar situation some day) and these are the kind of questions I'd like to see answered. And any normal tax lawyer or accountant will almost certainly NEVER advise you to do anything that could even remotely be considered even in a "gray area" of legality. They all will just give textbook "cover your ass" answers 99.9% of the time.

Personally, I don't read this blog for that kind of simple obvious textbook advice: I'm here for information about how to bend the rules to get back my privacy and God-given sovereign rights, about how to take back the power that agencies like IRS have taken away from all of us. Is everyone here so afraid of the tax man that we can't even speculate on a mostly anonymous web message board about what may or may not happen in Kevin's scenario? That's pretty sad, if so.

... To quote you, Janie: "I'm here for information about how to bend the rules..."

- - - I suspect you have not read How to be Invisible. Had you done so, you'd have learned that I advocate legal solutions (unlike a few other authors who will here go unnamed).

You add that you wish to "get back my privacy and God-given sovereign rights ..."

Oh boy. I shall assume you refer to the God of the Bible who is mentioned at Psalm 83:18 rather than the god of this present world (John 12:31, 2 Cor. 4:4, 1 John 5:19, Revelation [Apocalipsis] 12:9,12), right?

You have no "God-given sovereign rights," where did that idea come from? Certainly not from the Scriptures!

As for "how to take back the power that agencies like IRS have taken away from all of us," read Luke 20: 22-26. You ask, "Is everyone here so afraid of the tax man?"

Of course not. Rather, many of us here are afraid of displeasing someone far higher than the "tax man." (Romans 13:1-7)

=======================

NOTE TO READERS: This forum is about privacy, not about religion. However, when I read about "God-given sovereign rights" and "take back the power," I just had to respond.

Let's leave it at that and get back to legal ways of protecting our privacy.

By the way, there are aggresive lawyers who deal in gray areas. It's just that all the good ones are expensive (read $400 to $1000 an hour).

You are required to report your "worldwide income". It doesn't matter if it is in a bank outside the US. The money is in your control. Your strategy will not fly legally. You should talk to a tax strategist who helps people lower their tax liability with legitimate methods. (Hard to find a good one in my mind) Danny

But, I know that! Of course before I do anything for sure I will check with a competent tax attorney/accountant here in my area. Goes without saying.

For now, I'm just looking for general info/advice on if I'm thinking in the right ballpark OR if it's a totally stupid approach (evasion vs avoidance?) to try and manage it like this.

Tax professionals will generally give only very conservative "safe" advice, C-Y-A type stuff, and I'm searching for more "alternative" or "aggressive" ideas to keep as much of my money from the tax man as possible. Isn't that what the Internet is for? ;-)

KEVIN

My question has to do with tax planning for receiving a large $100K+ settlement soon. It's the first significant money I've had in years (basically broke, living hand to mouth these days). The funds will come thru my lawyers trust account in Chicago when they are paid (the agreement says they must pay my attorney first, then my atty will take his contingency percent and transfer the balance to me)

The problem is if I take all the money at once, before the end of this year, I'll have a huge tax bite. My wife here in the USA with me is a citizen of Lithuania and she has an account with a bank in her country which is still in her maiden name: so my idea was to have my lawyer's office make the transfer to her account instead of my bank in the USA, and then I will slowly bring the money into the USA over the next couple years, in order to pay lower taxes on a lower "income stream" per year, versus one huge lump sum windfall. We have an ATM card for the account which allows up to $1000 per day to be withdrawn in cash.

I fully intend to pay what taxes I am required by law (but as low as legally possible, if I can manage it right). But my question is if the IRS or the bank or my attorney will be reporting any info about this initial large transfer as "current income" in any form, which seems like it might blow this plan.

Thanks in advance for all ideas or comments

... You need advice from a tax lawyer, Kevin.

If the link does not work, just go to associatedpress.com and put 'international transfers' into their search engine.

... (The link does NOT work so I deleted it.)

Lake County, Indiana is known nationwide for fraudulent actions on the part of its elected officials. As a result of that reputation, sometimes political candidates' lives are looked into with bias and prejudice. All is fair in love, war, and politics here.

Also, many times elected officials are required by law to actually reside within the community or county that they are serving. Hence, there are an enormous number of politicians in this area who (mysteriously - sarcasm intended) have "vacation homes" just over county and/or state borders.

Finally, nobody who is truly seeking privacy would be running for public office anyway, so yes, if that particular lady had not been seeking public office, she might have continued with her dual licensure undetected for many more years to come.

Just because something can be "gotten away with" does not make it legal or ethical or right. If a person chooses to knowingly engage in illegal activity, that person is also presumed to be fully aware of the consequences. If you really want to maintain dual licensure, you need to continually remind yourself that if you are caught the penalties will be whatever the two states' laws allow... And then you need to accept the fact that they will be enforced... And you will not get to choose the time or the circumstances under which those illegal acts are exposed.

... OK, readers, it is generally agree that having two licenses is not a good idea. Period. No more posts on this subject, please.

I read the article Dorothy linked and found a PDF of the decision at the link below.

While Drake and Dorothy are certainly right that dual drivers licenses are not allowed - it seems possible to have have them for years, if the Seaton case is typical.

According to the decision, she renewed licenses and got duplicate licenses for years, with neither state checking some kind of master database for other licenses.

Indiana and Michigan share a border, so you'd think they'd have some kind of data sharing program.

Her addresses, Gary, IN, and Union Pier, MI are only 47 miles apart.

The person in question, Seaton, is a candidate for Lake County assessor, which invites scrutiny.

Otherwise, I guess this could've gone on indefinitely.

So I wonder how much DMVs (BMVs, MVAs, etc.) share data and how and when it is used.

Submitted Link #1: http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/gary/pdf_8...

... I fail to see what you are trying to accomplish, Frank. You may end up with LESS privacy rather than more.