K-1 Clarification of Temporary Work Authorization via JFK

[payxibka 10,045]

as an independent or freelance worker I imagine you can work because you will NOT prepare an I-9

That's possible.

Will the people who hire him give him a 1099 at year end?

If so, he's going to need to include that income on the tax return he will file (jointly I presume) with his wife at year end 2009. And he will be taxed on it.

I'd love to know if that is income from unlawful employment. I really don't know if it would be or not. We know that unlawful employment can be forgiven at the adjustment of status by virtue of marriage to a USC. But, if it is unlawful employment, why invite the problem?

*scratches head*

If you have the authorization stamp as provided by JFK... How can it be remotely classified as "illegal" income or unlawful employment?

pay -

The I9 says (in Column A) that to legally work from the I94, the immigrant must be in a status where they are authorized to work for a specific employer. This obviously refers to aliens who are admitted under work visas.

I do not know if working for oneself is a stretch of that wording or not. It sounds to me like it could be, but I'm not going to stand here and say for certain.

*shrugs*

There used to be a gentleman who posted here who was pretty good at cutting through the muck. In a similar thread as this (but written ages ago) his final comment on the subject was why do something you know MIGHT be a problem but PROBABLY would be forgiven by the Service. Is it worth it to you (the immigrant) to roll the dice? So - I'm merely standing on his summation.

Please... authorized is authorized.... for those that have the infamous "stamp" from JFK ARE in fact authorized... Now, you may not be able to fulfill the I-9 requirement, so I am NOT arguing that point... but I see absolutely NO reason that for those who are able, can work for themselves, as a result of a lack of an I-9 requirement.

It really is chicken versus egg... 1) you must be authorized and 2) you must provide the adequate documentation when an I-9 is required. When an I-9 is not required then all you need is #1.

Edited May 23, 2009 by payxibka

[rebeccajo 14]

as an independent or freelance worker I imagine you can work because you will NOT prepare an I-9

That's possible.

Will the people who hire him give him a 1099 at year end?

If so, he's going to need to include that income on the tax return he will file (jointly I presume) with his wife at year end 2009. And he will be taxed on it.

I'd love to know if that is income from unlawful employment. I really don't know if it would be or not. We know that unlawful employment can be forgiven at the adjustment of status by virtue of marriage to a USC. But, if it is unlawful employment, why invite the problem?

*scratches head*

If you have the authorization stamp as provided by JFK... How can it be remotely classified as "illegal" income or unlawful employment?

pay -

The I9 says (in Column A) that to legally work from the I94, the immigrant must be in a status where they are authorized to work for a specific employer. This obviously refers to aliens who are admitted under work visas.

I do not know if working for oneself is a stretch of that wording or not. It sounds to me like it could be, but I'm not going to stand here and say for certain.

*shrugs*

There used to be a gentleman who posted here who was pretty good at cutting through the muck. In a similar thread as this (but written ages ago) his final comment on the subject was why do something you know MIGHT be a problem but PROBABLY would be forgiven by the Service. Is it worth it to you (the immigrant) to roll the dice? So - I'm merely standing on his summation.

Please... authorized is authorized.... for those that have the infamous "stamp" from JFK ARE in fact authorized... Now, you may not be able to fulfill the I-9 requirement, so I am NOT arguing that point... but I see absolutely NO reason that for those who are able, can work for themselves, as a result of a lack of an I-9 requirement.

It really is chicken versus egg... 1) you must be authorized and 2) you must provide the adequate documentation when an I-9 is required. When an I-9 is not required then all you need is #1.

No offense pay but I'd like to see that confirmed by an expert in employment/immigration law.

[payxibka 10,045]

No offense pay but I'd like to see that confirmed by an expert in employment/immigration law.

So you are disputing the authorizing entity (DHS)? I am not sure you can get any closer to the source than the DHS itself.

If the "WORK AUTHORIZED UNTIL ______________" is not valid then what?

It can mean one thing and one thing only....

[rebeccajo 14]

No offense pay but I'd like to see that confirmed by an expert in employment/immigration law.

So you are disputing the authorizing entity (DHS)? I am not sure you can get any closer to the source than the DHS itself.

If the "WORK AUTHORIZED UNTIL ______________" is not valid then what?

It can mean one thing and one thing only....

Hey calm down. I'm not arguing with you. I'm just saying it could be a gray area. There are such things in the law, you know.

Might be worth a trip over to britishexpats.com for some research on the topic, though. I don't have the time for that right now - need to clean the deck........

[payxibka 10,045]

Hey calm down. I'm not arguing with you. I'm just saying it could be a gray area. There are such things in the law, you know.

Might be worth a trip over to britishexpats.com for some research on the topic, though. I don't have the time for that right now - need to clean the deck........

Ah yes. when in doubt, britishexpats... the expert source for all things...

if you apply the "reasonable man" standard then this is pretty simple... I am quite sure (if it ever got that far) that any judge would see what is.

[rebeccajo 14]

Hey calm down. I'm not arguing with you. I'm just saying it could be a gray area. There are such things in the law, you know.

Might be worth a trip over to britishexpats.com for some research on the topic, though. I don't have the time for that right now - need to clean the deck........

Ah yes. when in doubt, britishexpats... the expert source for all things...

if you apply the "reasonable man" standard then this is pretty simple... I am quite sure (if it ever got that far) that any judge would see what is.

Good grief.

Pardon me for suggesting there might be another website out there where a person could learn a thing or two.

British or not.

Edited May 23, 2009 by rebeccajo

[payxibka 10,045]

Hey calm down. I'm not arguing with you. I'm just saying it could be a gray area. There are such things in the law, you know.

Might be worth a trip over to britishexpats.com for some research on the topic, though. I don't have the time for that right now - need to clean the deck........

Ah yes. when in doubt, britishexpats... the expert source for all things...

if you apply the "reasonable man" standard then this is pretty simple... I am quite sure (if it ever got that far) that any judge would see what is.

Good grief.

Pardon me for suggesting there might be another website out there where a person could learn a thing or two.

British or not.

sure but you wanted to hear from expert in law.... then you suggest expats... which is no more an expert than VJ... I would have reacted the same had you suggested FBI.... though the chance of an informed opinion from there is quite likely as well....

[rebeccajo 14]

Hey calm down. I'm not arguing with you. I'm just saying it could be a gray area. There are such things in the law, you know.

Might be worth a trip over to britishexpats.com for some research on the topic, though. I don't have the time for that right now - need to clean the deck........

Ah yes. when in doubt, britishexpats... the expert source for all things...

if you apply the "reasonable man" standard then this is pretty simple... I am quite sure (if it ever got that far) that any judge would see what is.

Good grief.

Pardon me for suggesting there might be another website out there where a person could learn a thing or two.

British or not.

sure but you wanted to hear from expert in law.... then you suggest expats... which is no more an expert than VJ... I would have reacted the same had you suggested FBI.... though the chance of an informed opinion from there is quite likely as well....

I suggested BE because I'm pretty sure there are already threads there on the topic.

I would have suggested FBI also but I wasn't sure the filter was removed.

[Boiler 45,486]

BE has contributing Lawyers, this site does not.

There is no definite source anyway, the best you will get this side of case law is an opinion, and you could probably get one of those to support any view you would care to take.

Edited May 24, 2009 by Boiler