Tax Transcripts vs. Tax Returns for I-134

[rebeccajo 14]

This is a consulate specific issue and there are no broad paintbrush rules.

Some consulates do not even use the I134. If used, it serves the purpose of creating a 'boilerplate' picture of the finances of sponsors.

It is certainly not a 'mini I-864'. It is not legally binding and has no specific guidelines other than the wording of the instructions for the form of income 'sufficiency'.

A transcript is not superior to a completely documented and signed copy of the return.

Three years ago, the London consulate took my I134 without a single piece of supporting information. Mileage will vary.

[pushbrk 12,877]

This is a consulate specific issue and there are no broad paintbrush rules.

Some consulates do not even use the I134. If used, it serves the purpose of creating a 'boilerplate' picture of the finances of sponsors.

It is certainly not a 'mini I-864'. It is not legally binding and has no specific guidelines other than the wording of the instructions for the form of income 'sufficiency'.

A transcript is not superior to a completely documented and signed copy of the return.

Three years ago, the London consulate took my I134 without a single piece of supporting information. Mileage will vary.

Transcripts won't get better results than completely documented and signed copies of tax returns. Their superiority, IMO, stems from their simplicity and brevity. You don't have to rely on the Consular officer or adjudicator understanding a complex tax return. They look at one line and accept that if you were willing to pay the tax on the income, you earned it. Consulates have stated their prefernce for transcripts. That in itself leads me to conclude it's better to send them than copies of returns. Also, our members are never confused about what constitutes "a completely documented and signed" tax transcript, which is the reason for this discussion to begin with.

Edited December 7, 2008 by pushbrk

[rebeccajo 14]

This is a consulate specific issue and there are no broad paintbrush rules.

Some consulates do not even use the I134. If used, it serves the purpose of creating a 'boilerplate' picture of the finances of sponsors.

It is certainly not a 'mini I-864'. It is not legally binding and has no specific guidelines other than the wording of the instructions for the form of income 'sufficiency'.

A transcript is not superior to a completely documented and signed copy of the return.

Three years ago, the London consulate took my I134 without a single piece of supporting information. Mileage will vary.

Transcripts won't get better results than completely documented and signed copies of tax returns. Their superiority, IMO, stems from their simplicity and brevity. You don't have to rely on the Consular officer or adjudicator understanding a complex tax return. They look at one line and accept that if you were willing to pay the tax on the income, you earned it. Consulates have stated their prefernce for transcripts. That in itself leads me to conclude it's better to send them than copies of returns. Also, our members are never confused about what constitutes "a completely documented and signed" tax transcript, which is the reason for this discussion to begin with.

Sine the CO looks at one figure on one line of the face of the 1040 there is no need to be concerned with the complexity of the tax return.

If a sponsor has a completely documented tax return there is no need to bother with ordering transcripts. The process does not have to harder than necessary.

[pushbrk 12,877]

This is a consulate specific issue and there are no broad paintbrush rules.

Some consulates do not even use the I134. If used, it serves the purpose of creating a 'boilerplate' picture of the finances of sponsors.

It is certainly not a 'mini I-864'. It is not legally binding and has no specific guidelines other than the wording of the instructions for the form of income 'sufficiency'.

A transcript is not superior to a completely documented and signed copy of the return.

Three years ago, the London consulate took my I134 without a single piece of supporting information. Mileage will vary.

Transcripts won't get better results than completely documented and signed copies of tax returns. Their superiority, IMO, stems from their simplicity and brevity. You don't have to rely on the Consular officer or adjudicator understanding a complex tax return. They look at one line and accept that if you were willing to pay the tax on the income, you earned it. Consulates have stated their prefernce for transcripts. That in itself leads me to conclude it's better to send them than copies of returns. Also, our members are never confused about what constitutes "a completely documented and signed" tax transcript, which is the reason for this discussion to begin with.

Sine the CO looks at one figure on one line of the face of the 1040 there is no need to be concerned with the complexity of the tax return.

If a sponsor has a completely documented tax return there is no need to bother with ordering transcripts. The process does not have to harder than necessary.

The CO can, will and commonly does look at anything he or she deems necessary, including whether the income stated on that one line is documented. You categorical statement that they look at one line only is ludicrous.

They may not look at anything (I've seen visa issued without even asking for financials.) or look at everything or anything between nothing and everything. The safe bet is to document the claimed income.

Anybody can fill out a 1040 with any number they want. It doesn't mean they filed it or had the income.

Edited December 7, 2008 by pushbrk

[rebeccajo 14]

This is a consulate specific issue and there are no broad paintbrush rules.

Some consulates do not even use the I134. If used, it serves the purpose of creating a 'boilerplate' picture of the finances of sponsors.

It is certainly not a 'mini I-864'. It is not legally binding and has no specific guidelines other than the wording of the instructions for the form of income 'sufficiency'.

A transcript is not superior to a completely documented and signed copy of the return.

Three years ago, the London consulate took my I134 without a single piece of supporting information. Mileage will vary.

Transcripts won't get better results than completely documented and signed copies of tax returns. Their superiority, IMO, stems from their simplicity and brevity. You don't have to rely on the Consular officer or adjudicator understanding a complex tax return. They look at one line and accept that if you were willing to pay the tax on the income, you earned it. Consulates have stated their prefernce for transcripts. That in itself leads me to conclude it's better to send them than copies of returns. Also, our members are never confused about what constitutes "a completely documented and signed" tax transcript, which is the reason for this discussion to begin with.

Sine the CO looks at one figure on one line of the face of the 1040 there is no need to be concerned with the complexity of the tax return.

If a sponsor has a completely documented tax return there is no need to bother with ordering transcripts. The process does not have to harder than necessary.

The CO can, will and commonly does look at anything he or she deems necessary, including whether the income stated on that one line is documented. You categorical statement that they look at one line only is ludicrous.

They may not look at anything (I've seen visa issued without even asking for financials.) or look at everything or anything between nothing and everything. The safe bet is to document the claimed income.

Anybody can fill out a 1040 with any number they want. It doesn't mean they filed it or had the income.

Sure they can look at anything and everything. Which is why you include all the attachments if you are using a copy of the return rather than the transcript. Which means you have documented the income filled out on the 1040. Which means the sponsor has made up nothing. Which means the CO has to accept the document as factual.

[pushbrk 12,877]

This is a consulate specific issue and there are no broad paintbrush rules.

Some consulates do not even use the I134. If used, it serves the purpose of creating a 'boilerplate' picture of the finances of sponsors.

It is certainly not a 'mini I-864'. It is not legally binding and has no specific guidelines other than the wording of the instructions for the form of income 'sufficiency'.

A transcript is not superior to a completely documented and signed copy of the return.

Three years ago, the London consulate took my I134 without a single piece of supporting information. Mileage will vary.

Transcripts won't get better results than completely documented and signed copies of tax returns. Their superiority, IMO, stems from their simplicity and brevity. You don't have to rely on the Consular officer or adjudicator understanding a complex tax return. They look at one line and accept that if you were willing to pay the tax on the income, you earned it. Consulates have stated their prefernce for transcripts. That in itself leads me to conclude it's better to send them than copies of returns. Also, our members are never confused about what constitutes "a completely documented and signed" tax transcript, which is the reason for this discussion to begin with.

Sine the CO looks at one figure on one line of the face of the 1040 there is no need to be concerned with the complexity of the tax return.

If a sponsor has a completely documented tax return there is no need to bother with ordering transcripts. The process does not have to harder than necessary.

The CO can, will and commonly does look at anything he or she deems necessary, including whether the income stated on that one line is documented. You categorical statement that they look at one line only is ludicrous.

They may not look at anything (I've seen visa issued without even asking for financials.) or look at everything or anything between nothing and everything. The safe bet is to document the claimed income.

Anybody can fill out a 1040 with any number they want. It doesn't mean they filed it or had the income.

Sure they can look at anything and everything. Which is why you include all the attachments if you are using a copy of the return rather than the transcript. Which means you have documented the income filled out on the 1040. Which means the sponsor has made up nothing. Which means the CO has to accept the document as factual.

After they look to see if it's all there. To know if "all" is there, they need to know more about tax returns than they need to know if it's a transcript. We already agreed the result generally no different and I've stated my case for why I think it's better to send transcripts. The primary basis for that is the stated preference of Consulates.

Maybe think of it this way. When you tell your husband you prefer roses to orchids, would you say it's better if he buys roses, particularly if it requires very little effort to cater to your preference? If not you, then I assure you most people I know would. Consulates prefer transcripts, therefor it is better to send transcripts but they'll approve the visa even if you provide orchids.

[rebeccajo 14]

This is a consulate specific issue and there are no broad paintbrush rules.

Some consulates do not even use the I134. If used, it serves the purpose of creating a 'boilerplate' picture of the finances of sponsors.

It is certainly not a 'mini I-864'. It is not legally binding and has no specific guidelines other than the wording of the instructions for the form of income 'sufficiency'.

A transcript is not superior to a completely documented and signed copy of the return.

Three years ago, the London consulate took my I134 without a single piece of supporting information. Mileage will vary.

Transcripts won't get better results than completely documented and signed copies of tax returns. Their superiority, IMO, stems from their simplicity and brevity. You don't have to rely on the Consular officer or adjudicator understanding a complex tax return. They look at one line and accept that if you were willing to pay the tax on the income, you earned it. Consulates have stated their prefernce for transcripts. That in itself leads me to conclude it's better to send them than copies of returns. Also, our members are never confused about what constitutes "a completely documented and signed" tax transcript, which is the reason for this discussion to begin with.

Sine the CO looks at one figure on one line of the face of the 1040 there is no need to be concerned with the complexity of the tax return.

If a sponsor has a completely documented tax return there is no need to bother with ordering transcripts. The process does not have to harder than necessary.

The CO can, will and commonly does look at anything he or she deems necessary, including whether the income stated on that one line is documented. You categorical statement that they look at one line only is ludicrous.

They may not look at anything (I've seen visa issued without even asking for financials.) or look at everything or anything between nothing and everything. The safe bet is to document the claimed income.

Anybody can fill out a 1040 with any number they want. It doesn't mean they filed it or had the income.

Sure they can look at anything and everything. Which is why you include all the attachments if you are using a copy of the return rather than the transcript. Which means you have documented the income filled out on the 1040. Which means the sponsor has made up nothing. Which means the CO has to accept the document as factual.

After they look to see if it's all there. To know if "all" is there, they need to know more about tax returns than they need to know if it's a transcript. We already agreed the result generally no different and I've stated my case for why I think it's better to send transcripts. The primary basis for that is the stated preference of Consulates.

Maybe think of it this way. When you tell your husband you prefer roses to orchids, would you say it's better if he buys roses, particularly if it requires very little effort to cater to your preference? If not you, then I assure you most people I know would. Consulates prefer transcripts, therefor it is better to send transcripts but they'll approve the visa even if you provide orchids.

When you can show me written evidence that consulates across the board prefer transcripts vs. fully documented and signed tax returns, then we can agree.

Otherwise I say the point you are trying to make is merely your opinion.

Edited December 7, 2008 by rebeccajo

[Thai family 0]

A tax return can be faked much more easily than a transcript. Anyone can fill out a return, sign it, and not file it.

A transcript is proof that a return has been submitted and taxes paid, if indeed taxes were paid. US citizens are required to pay taxes if they meet income requirements. The US government does not want tax evaders bringing immigrants here. That is one reason tax transcripts are preferred. The consular officer has to sift through fewer papers too, which is always a plus. Unless there's time factor, such as the need for proof of 2008 income, say Feb 1st, and that transcript isn't in the system, submit the transcript. That being said, I'm sure many visas have been approved based on tax returns and supporting documentation. Look at the specific directions from the embassy for your guidance.

Thai Mom

Edited December 7, 2008 by Thai family

[pushbrk 12,877]

This is a consulate specific issue and there are no broad paintbrush rules.

Some consulates do not even use the I134. If used, it serves the purpose of creating a 'boilerplate' picture of the finances of sponsors.

It is certainly not a 'mini I-864'. It is not legally binding and has no specific guidelines other than the wording of the instructions for the form of income 'sufficiency'.

A transcript is not superior to a completely documented and signed copy of the return.

Three years ago, the London consulate took my I134 without a single piece of supporting information. Mileage will vary.

Transcripts won't get better results than completely documented and signed copies of tax returns. Their superiority, IMO, stems from their simplicity and brevity. You don't have to rely on the Consular officer or adjudicator understanding a complex tax return. They look at one line and accept that if you were willing to pay the tax on the income, you earned it. Consulates have stated their prefernce for transcripts. That in itself leads me to conclude it's better to send them than copies of returns. Also, our members are never confused about what constitutes "a completely documented and signed" tax transcript, which is the reason for this discussion to begin with.

Sine the CO looks at one figure on one line of the face of the 1040 there is no need to be concerned with the complexity of the tax return.

If a sponsor has a completely documented tax return there is no need to bother with ordering transcripts. The process does not have to harder than necessary.

The CO can, will and commonly does look at anything he or she deems necessary, including whether the income stated on that one line is documented. You categorical statement that they look at one line only is ludicrous.

They may not look at anything (I've seen visa issued without even asking for financials.) or look at everything or anything between nothing and everything. The safe bet is to document the claimed income.

Anybody can fill out a 1040 with any number they want. It doesn't mean they filed it or had the income.

Sure they can look at anything and everything. Which is why you include all the attachments if you are using a copy of the return rather than the transcript. Which means you have documented the income filled out on the 1040. Which means the sponsor has made up nothing. Which means the CO has to accept the document as factual.

After they look to see if it's all there. To know if "all" is there, they need to know more about tax returns than they need to know if it's a transcript. We already agreed the result generally no different and I've stated my case for why I think it's better to send transcripts. The primary basis for that is the stated preference of Consulates.

Maybe think of it this way. When you tell your husband you prefer roses to orchids, would you say it's better if he buys roses, particularly if it requires very little effort to cater to your preference? If not you, then I assure you most people I know would. Consulates prefer transcripts, therefor it is better to send transcripts but they'll approve the visa even if you provide orchids.

When you can show me written evidence that consulates across the board prefer transcripts vs. fully documented and signed tax returns, then we can agree.

Otherwise I say the point you are trying to make is merely your opinion.

Of course it's my opinion and the evidence to back it up is anecdotal. We disagree. Please learn to live with it. I certainly have. The readers have enough information to decide what to submit.

Edited December 7, 2008 by pushbrk

[sweet_peach 0]

My co-sponsor is not self-employed, but she will still be including tax returns OR tax transcripts for the past 3 years with her I-134 for my fiance.

My question is, what is the difference between tax transcripts and tax returns?

If she chooses to include tax transcripts (by requesting them from the IRS for past 3 years) will she need to include her W-2s?

My understanding is this:

If including tax transcripts, there is no need for W-2's/1099's

If including tax returns, then need to include W-2's/1099's

Someone correct me please if I am wrong or reassure me that if she is going to include tax transcripts (ordered by IRS), she will not need to include W-2s/1099s.

Thanks!

-MARM

You got it right.

I second that, The consulates treat the I-134 like a mini I-864 so use the same document standards at the I-864 or I-864EZ.

I-864EZ Page 5

If you provide a photocopy of your tax return(s), you must include a copy of each and every FormW-2 and Form 1099

that relates to your return(s). Do not include copies of these Forms if you provide an IRS transcript of your return(s) rather than a photocopy.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-864EZ.pdf

If you need the for to get a transcript here is the link

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4506t.pdf

[toma1 10]

You don't have to rely on the Consular officer or adjudicator understanding a complex tax return.

I have worried about this issue. (My tax return required "extra postage" if that tells you anything.)

Since I DID include the 1099s from which tax was withheld (because they were required to be included with the return), the total of all of the included W-2s and 1099s does not add up to the amount stated on line 7 (nor should it). But I wonder if the consular officer will know exactly which combination of forms should be summed to get that line 7 amount. I actually feared that including MORE 1099s than necessary could create more confusion.

Anyway, to make a long story short (too late), I wish I had gone the transcript route, but c'est la vie...

[rebeccajo 14]

This is a consulate specific issue and there are no broad paintbrush rules.

Some consulates do not even use the I134. If used, it serves the purpose of creating a 'boilerplate' picture of the finances of sponsors.

It is certainly not a 'mini I-864'. It is not legally binding and has no specific guidelines other than the wording of the instructions for the form of income 'sufficiency'.

A transcript is not superior to a completely documented and signed copy of the return.

Three years ago, the London consulate took my I134 without a single piece of supporting information. Mileage will vary.

Transcripts won't get better results than completely documented and signed copies of tax returns. Their superiority, IMO, stems from their simplicity and brevity. You don't have to rely on the Consular officer or adjudicator understanding a complex tax return. They look at one line and accept that if you were willing to pay the tax on the income, you earned it. Consulates have stated their prefernce for transcripts. That in itself leads me to conclude it's better to send them than copies of returns. Also, our members are never confused about what constitutes "a completely documented and signed" tax transcript, which is the reason for this discussion to begin with.

Sine the CO looks at one figure on one line of the face of the 1040 there is no need to be concerned with the complexity of the tax return.

If a sponsor has a completely documented tax return there is no need to bother with ordering transcripts. The process does not have to harder than necessary.

The CO can, will and commonly does look at anything he or she deems necessary, including whether the income stated on that one line is documented. You categorical statement that they look at one line only is ludicrous.

They may not look at anything (I've seen visa issued without even asking for financials.) or look at everything or anything between nothing and everything. The safe bet is to document the claimed income.

Anybody can fill out a 1040 with any number they want. It doesn't mean they filed it or had the income.

Sure they can look at anything and everything. Which is why you include all the attachments if you are using a copy of the return rather than the transcript. Which means you have documented the income filled out on the 1040. Which means the sponsor has made up nothing. Which means the CO has to accept the document as factual.

After they look to see if it's all there. To know if "all" is there, they need to know more about tax returns than they need to know if it's a transcript. We already agreed the result generally no different and I've stated my case for why I think it's better to send transcripts. The primary basis for that is the stated preference of Consulates.

Maybe think of it this way. When you tell your husband you prefer roses to orchids, would you say it's better if he buys roses, particularly if it requires very little effort to cater to your preference? If not you, then I assure you most people I know would. Consulates prefer transcripts, therefor it is better to send transcripts but they'll approve the visa even if you provide orchids.

When you can show me written evidence that consulates across the board prefer transcripts vs. fully documented and signed tax returns, then we can agree.

Otherwise I say the point you are trying to make is merely your opinion.

Of course it's my opinion and the evidence to back it up is anecdotal. We disagree. Please learn to live with it. I certainly have. The readers have enough information to decide what to submit.

Of course it's your opinion. But there is no anecdotal evidence to back it up. That is why we disagree. And that is why I push the point.

Your opinion, while valuable, is not always RIGHT. In other words, there is a difference between what you believe is the best course of action and what people need to do in order to gain a 'yes' answer from the Service.

And THAT is what YOU need to learn to live with.

[pushbrk 12,877]

This is a consulate specific issue and there are no broad paintbrush rules.

Some consulates do not even use the I134. If used, it serves the purpose of creating a 'boilerplate' picture of the finances of sponsors.

It is certainly not a 'mini I-864'. It is not legally binding and has no specific guidelines other than the wording of the instructions for the form of income 'sufficiency'.

A transcript is not superior to a completely documented and signed copy of the return.

Three years ago, the London consulate took my I134 without a single piece of supporting information. Mileage will vary.

Transcripts won't get better results than completely documented and signed copies of tax returns. Their superiority, IMO, stems from their simplicity and brevity. You don't have to rely on the Consular officer or adjudicator understanding a complex tax return. They look at one line and accept that if you were willing to pay the tax on the income, you earned it. Consulates have stated their prefernce for transcripts. That in itself leads me to conclude it's better to send them than copies of returns. Also, our members are never confused about what constitutes "a completely documented and signed" tax transcript, which is the reason for this discussion to begin with.

Sine the CO looks at one figure on one line of the face of the 1040 there is no need to be concerned with the complexity of the tax return.

If a sponsor has a completely documented tax return there is no need to bother with ordering transcripts. The process does not have to harder than necessary.

The CO can, will and commonly does look at anything he or she deems necessary, including whether the income stated on that one line is documented. You categorical statement that they look at one line only is ludicrous.

They may not look at anything (I've seen visa issued without even asking for financials.) or look at everything or anything between nothing and everything. The safe bet is to document the claimed income.

Anybody can fill out a 1040 with any number they want. It doesn't mean they filed it or had the income.

Sure they can look at anything and everything. Which is why you include all the attachments if you are using a copy of the return rather than the transcript. Which means you have documented the income filled out on the 1040. Which means the sponsor has made up nothing. Which means the CO has to accept the document as factual.

After they look to see if it's all there. To know if "all" is there, they need to know more about tax returns than they need to know if it's a transcript. We already agreed the result generally no different and I've stated my case for why I think it's better to send transcripts. The primary basis for that is the stated preference of Consulates.

Maybe think of it this way. When you tell your husband you prefer roses to orchids, would you say it's better if he buys roses, particularly if it requires very little effort to cater to your preference? If not you, then I assure you most people I know would. Consulates prefer transcripts, therefor it is better to send transcripts but they'll approve the visa even if you provide orchids.

When you can show me written evidence that consulates across the board prefer transcripts vs. fully documented and signed tax returns, then we can agree.

Otherwise I say the point you are trying to make is merely your opinion.

Of course it's my opinion and the evidence to back it up is anecdotal. We disagree. Please learn to live with it. I certainly have. The readers have enough information to decide what to submit.

Of course it's your opinion. But there is no anecdotal evidence to back it up. That is why we disagree. And that is why I push the point.

Your opinion, while valuable, is not always RIGHT. In other words, there is a difference between what you believe is the best course of action and what people need to do in order to gain a 'yes' answer from the Service.

And THAT is what YOU need to learn to live with.

With all possible respect, YOU don't know what anecdotal evidence I possess. That you aren't aware of any is a given. Whether I am or not is not for you to decide.

We learn things as we go along. If we had to provide hard sources for everything we learned before answering questions here, this forum would be rendered useless. I've learned along the way that Consular officers would rather see transcripts. However, they certainly will accept complete tax returns. I've also learned they always accept true transcripts at face value but sometimes question tax returns for various reasons.

You have a different opinion based on what I assume are legitimate experiences. I accept that. The readers are free to choose their own paths when it comes to this. I don't understand what purpose you think you're serving by making such a big issue about the 5 minutes it takes to order transcripts. I've certainly never suggested it's unwise to use complete tax returns instead.

[rebeccajo 14]

With all possible respect, YOU don't know what anecdotal evidence I possess. That you aren't aware of any is a given. Whether I am or not is not for you to decide.

We learn things as we go along. If we had to provide hard sources for everything we learned before answering questions here, this forum would be rendered useless. I've learned along the way that Consular officers would rather see transcripts. However, they certainly will accept complete tax returns. I've also learned they always accept true transcripts at face value but sometimes question tax returns for various reasons.

You have a different opinion based on what I assume are legitimate experiences. I accept that. The readers are free to choose their own paths when it comes to this. I don't understand what purpose you think you're serving by making such a big issue about the 5 minutes it takes to order transcripts. I've certainly never suggested it's unwise to use complete tax returns instead.

You have stated transcripts are preferred by consulates.

As far as anecdotal evidence goes, I have read of the occasional rare situation where a CO asked for W-2's when a transcript was the document provided.

CO's can ask for whatever they like, you know. Stating that one form of evidence is preferential (when there is no bonafide evidence you can possibly possess to prove that) is an error.

[pushbrk 12,877]

With all possible respect, YOU don't know what anecdotal evidence I possess. That you aren't aware of any is a given. Whether I am or not is not for you to decide.

We learn things as we go along. If we had to provide hard sources for everything we learned before answering questions here, this forum would be rendered useless. I've learned along the way that Consular officers would rather see transcripts. However, they certainly will accept complete tax returns. I've also learned they always accept true transcripts at face value but sometimes question tax returns for various reasons.

You have a different opinion based on what I assume are legitimate experiences. I accept that. The readers are free to choose their own paths when it comes to this. I don't understand what purpose you think you're serving by making such a big issue about the 5 minutes it takes to order transcripts. I've certainly never suggested it's unwise to use complete tax returns instead.

You have stated transcripts are preferred by consulates.

As far as anecdotal evidence goes, I have read of the occasional rare situation where a CO asked for W-2's when a transcript was the document provided.

CO's can ask for whatever they like, you know. Stating that one form of evidence is preferential (when there is no bonafide evidence you can possibly possess to prove that) is an error.

Horse feathers!