Theoretical situation related to k1 sponsorship and assets

[sera77 35]

Hello folks,

Theoretical situation and question coming up...

USC makes just below the line for sponsoring her fiance from a low-fraud country; it's a new job and therefore there isn't a long track record of income.

However, family members are well off and would co sponsor if there is no other way.

These possible sponsors would prefer to simply give their future wedding gift cash to the USC now, so that it is in her name and can be listed as an asset and she can sponsor the fiance herself. Why? Because they would rather not to send in their tax info to the fiance and thereby revealing their income and such. (The family is close but prefers to keep money matters personal and private)

The money would truly be a gift, it's going to be given to the USC anyways in order to pay for anything wedding related that the USC and her fiance wish to indulge in. (wedding reception, honeymoon, new car, house downpayment etc.) It would simply be given now rather than later at the time that the fiance is present in the U.S and the plans are moving forward.

Anyone see anything that would cause a problem with getting the sponsorship by the USC done this way ? Banks have to report anything more than 10k being moved between or into accounts, so if they( the government ) looked into it closely they'd see the money as being newly there and not from saved income.

The theoretical USC would like to keep the family happy But will do whatever is more proper and viewed more kindly by the powers that be....

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

That would work if your sole intention is meeting the minimum requirements. The sponsor may have to pay taxes on the gift from his family members, and the assets after taxes would have to be at least 3 times the difference between the sponsor's income and the 125% poverty level for the number of people who will be dependent on the sponsor's income.

Depending on the consulate, it may be possible for one of the family members to co-sponsor the beneficiary without the beneficiary ever seeing their tax documents. Some consulates will allow the sponsor to attend the interview with the beneficiary. In this case, the sponsor can submit the I-134 documents directly to the CO.

Theoretical scenarios can be fun for speculation, but in the end it's entirely up to the discretion of the CO. Any scenario that barely gets the sponsor across the minimum threshold is still at risk of being denied by the CO.

One of the statements the sponsor swears to on the I-134 is "I am ready and willing to deposit a bond, if necessary, to guarantee that such person(s) will not become a public charge during his or her stay in the United States". Anybody ever look into the possibility of a co-sponsor simply depositing a bond?

[JERIII 8]

That would work if your sole intention is meeting the minimum requirements. The sponsor may have to pay taxes on the gift from his family members, and the assets after taxes would have to be at least 3 times the difference between the sponsor's income and the 125% poverty level for the number of people who will be dependent on the sponsor's income.

I'm not sure how to read the comment about taxes. In US tax law, gifts are not taxable for the recipient. They might be taxable for the giver.

[pushbrk 13,172]

Hello folks,

Theoretical situation and question coming up...

USC makes just below the line for sponsoring her fiance from a low-fraud country; it's a new job and therefore there isn't a long track record of income.

However, family members are well off and would co sponsor if there is no other way.

These possible sponsors would prefer to simply give their future wedding gift cash to the USC now, so that it is in her name and can be listed as an asset and she can sponsor the fiance herself. Why? Because they would rather not to send in their tax info to the fiance and thereby revealing their income and such. (The family is close but prefers to keep money matters personal and private)

The money would truly be a gift, it's going to be given to the USC anyways in order to pay for anything wedding related that the USC and her fiance wish to indulge in. (wedding reception, honeymoon, new car, house downpayment etc.) It would simply be given now rather than later at the time that the fiance is present in the U.S and the plans are moving forward.

Anyone see anything that would cause a problem with getting the sponsorship by the USC done this way ? Banks have to report anything more than 10k being moved between or into accounts, so if they( the government ) looked into it closely they'd see the money as being newly there and not from saved income.

The theoretical USC would like to keep the family happy But will do whatever is more proper and viewed more kindly by the powers that be....

Theoretically, that would work. Bear in mind it takes $3 in assets to cover $1 in income shortfall and that there is no assurance that "meeting the minimum guidelines" satisfy the Consular officer as to the public charge concern. Further, as this is a K1, you'll be filing an I-864 soon as well, so if you spend the money on a wedding and honeymoon after the visa is in hand, you'll face an even tougher problem when you file to adjust status.

[krystiandjon 0]

That would work if your sole intention is meeting the minimum requirements. The sponsor may have to pay taxes on the gift from his family members, and the assets after taxes would have to be at least 3 times the difference between the sponsor's income and the 125% poverty level for the number of people who will be dependent on the sponsor's income.

I'm not sure how to read the comment about taxes. In US tax law, gifts are not taxable for the recipient. They might be taxable for the giver.

Up to a $13,000 gift is tax free. And each spouse can give that amount to each recipient. So they can really give them up to $52,000 (13 from each spouse to child and child in law). And it would be taxable to the giver after that.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

That would work if your sole intention is meeting the minimum requirements. The sponsor may have to pay taxes on the gift from his family members, and the assets after taxes would have to be at least 3 times the difference between the sponsor's income and the 125% poverty level for the number of people who will be dependent on the sponsor's income.

I'm not sure how to read the comment about taxes. In US tax law, gifts are not taxable for the recipient. They might be taxable for the giver.

Up to a $13,000 gift is tax free. And each spouse can give that amount to each recipient. So they can really give them up to $52,000 (13 from each spouse to child and child in law). And it would be taxable to the giver after that.

I did say MAY have to pay taxes, but I guess JERIII may have read that as WILL have to pay taxes. Since we're talking hypothetical scenarios, I just wanted to make the point that gifts aren't always exempt from taxes. I've seen suggestions on this forum that someone let their parents transfer $50K into their bank accounts so that they could sponsor their fiance, and then transfer it back after they adjust status. The money would get dinged twice for taxes. That's why I asked if anyone has tried depositing a bond, since that would seem like a tax free way to guarantee the beneficiary, and the money would theoretically come back at some point.

The last I read, the exclusion was $12,000, but that was for 2008. As you say, each spouse in a married couple can give separate gifts. Their gifts don't have to each be under the exclusion limit, as long as the combined total isn't more than 2x the exclusion limit.

[krystiandjon 0]

That would work if your sole intention is meeting the minimum requirements. The sponsor may have to pay taxes on the gift from his family members, and the assets after taxes would have to be at least 3 times the difference between the sponsor's income and the 125% poverty level for the number of people who will be dependent on the sponsor's income.

I'm not sure how to read the comment about taxes. In US tax law, gifts are not taxable for the recipient. They might be taxable for the giver.

Up to a $13,000 gift is tax free. And each spouse can give that amount to each recipient. So they can really give them up to $52,000 (13 from each spouse to child and child in law). And it would be taxable to the giver after that.

I did say MAY have to pay taxes, but I guess JERIII may have read that as WILL have to pay taxes. Since we're talking hypothetical scenarios, I just wanted to make the point that gifts aren't always exempt from taxes. I've seen suggestions on this forum that someone let their parents transfer $50K into their bank accounts so that they could sponsor their fiance, and then transfer it back after they adjust status. The money would get dinged twice for taxes. That's why I asked if anyone has tried depositing a bond, since that would seem like a tax free way to guarantee the beneficiary, and the money would theoretically come back at some point.

The last I read, the exclusion was $12,000, but that was for 2008. As you say, each spouse in a married couple can give separate gifts. Their gifts don't have to each be under the exclusion limit, as long as the combined total isn't more than 2x the exclusion limit.

Yes, I was agreeing with you on that point (I can't imagine it would be necessary for the family to deposit more than 52 grand!)

I've often wondered about depositing a bond. Does anyone know anyone that's ever done this? How much was it?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Hello folks,

Theoretical situation and question coming up...

USC makes just below the line for sponsoring her fiance from a low-fraud country; it's a new job and therefore there isn't a long track record of income.

However, family members are well off and would co sponsor if there is no other way.

These possible sponsors would prefer to simply give their future wedding gift cash to the USC now, so that it is in her name and can be listed as an asset and she can sponsor the fiance herself. Why? Because they would rather not to send in their tax info to the fiance and thereby revealing their income and such. (The family is close but prefers to keep money matters personal and private)

The money would truly be a gift, it's going to be given to the USC anyways in order to pay for anything wedding related that the USC and her fiance wish to indulge in. (wedding reception, honeymoon, new car, house downpayment etc.) It would simply be given now rather than later at the time that the fiance is present in the U.S and the plans are moving forward.

Anyone see anything that would cause a problem with getting the sponsorship by the USC done this way ? Banks have to report anything more than 10k being moved between or into accounts, so if they( the government ) looked into it closely they'd see the money as being newly there and not from saved income.

The theoretical USC would like to keep the family happy But will do whatever is more proper and viewed more kindly by the powers that be....

Assets used as qualifications are valued at 1/3 of income. If you are $2000 "short", you would need $6000 in bank deposits or assets to make this up.

That's the good news.

If you do this with a transfer of money, then get a bank LETTER which states current balance and annual deposits for the last 12 months. I would suggest NOT submtting bank statements as a large deposit just before the interview could be seen as fraud. Also, remember, you have to do this all over again with the AOS. So if the intent is to deposit your "gift" of wedding money and then spend it on the wedding, what will you use for the AOS?

[sera77 35]

Thanks for the responses...

Very informative and useful and since there is only a small difference between what I ma...

er , what the theoretical USC makes and the level of income required the numbers look good and will be fine for AOS as well.

thanks again!

very relieved...

Sera

[vespa rossa 0]

Hello folks,

Theoretical situation and question coming up...

USC makes just below the line for sponsoring her fiance from a low-fraud country; it's a new job and therefore there isn't a long track record of income.

However, family members are well off and would co sponsor if there is no other way.

These possible sponsors would prefer to simply give their future wedding gift cash to the USC now, so that it is in her name and can be listed as an asset and she can sponsor the fiance herself. Why? Because they would rather not to send in their tax info to the fiance and thereby revealing their income and such. (The family is close but prefers to keep money matters personal and private)

The money would truly be a gift, it's going to be given to the USC anyways in order to pay for anything wedding related that the USC and her fiance wish to indulge in. (wedding reception, honeymoon, new car, house downpayment etc.) It would simply be given now rather than later at the time that the fiance is present in the U.S and the plans are moving forward.

Anyone see anything that would cause a problem with getting the sponsorship by the USC done this way ? Banks have to report anything more than 10k being moved between or into accounts, so if they( the government ) looked into it closely they'd see the money as being newly there and not from saved income.

The theoretical USC would like to keep the family happy But will do whatever is more proper and viewed more kindly by the powers that be....

Assets used as qualifications are valued at 1/3 of income. If you are $2000 "short", you would need $6000 in bank deposits or assets to make this up.

That's the good news.

If you do this with a transfer of money, then get a bank LETTER which states current balance and annual deposits for the last 12 months. I would suggest NOT submtting bank statements as a large deposit just before the interview could be seen as fraud. Also, remember, you have to do this all over again with the AOS. So if the intent is to deposit your "gift" of wedding money and then spend it on the wedding, what will you use for the AOS?

Gary, question for you. I'm about to fill out my I-134. I lost my full-time job in April and now have a job that's contract (freelance) to potential full time. My employer wrote my letter stating that I started in May, get paid a day rate and have potential to be a full time hire. Now, if you multiply out the day rate fo the year it's way above the poverty level. BUT I'm worried that since it's temporary, without 100% sure of being full time in the future, it will be a problem. What do you think? Or, anyone else?

[msu17 0]

We used bonds as assets, but didn't cash any in. That worked just fine. I have never cashed any in, but my mother has and I believe she had to pay taxes on the income, though we are private about finances in our family as well.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

We used bonds as assets, but didn't cash any in. That worked just fine. I have never cashed any in, but my mother has and I believe she had to pay taxes on the income, though we are private about finances in our family as well.

I don't know if that was a general comment about using bonds as assets, or if you were referring to the other comments in this thread about bonds.

When I first mentioned bonds I was talking about the I-134 instructions where it states that the sponsor is "ready and willing to deposit a bond" in order to guarantee the beneficiary. A lot of people come here with income below the required threshold, but with cash of their own or belonging to a close family member that they want to use to make up the difference. What I was wondering was if anyone had ever approached USCIS and offered to take them up on the terms of the I-130, and just deposit a bond with USCIS. That would seem like an easy and tax-free way to meet the requirements. In theory, the sponsor would get the money back once the beneficiary either became a US citizen, or accumulated 40 quarters of work credit.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Hello folks,

Theoretical situation and question coming up...

USC makes just below the line for sponsoring her fiance from a low-fraud country; it's a new job and therefore there isn't a long track record of income.

However, family members are well off and would co sponsor if there is no other way.

These possible sponsors would prefer to simply give their future wedding gift cash to the USC now, so that it is in her name and can be listed as an asset and she can sponsor the fiance herself. Why? Because they would rather not to send in their tax info to the fiance and thereby revealing their income and such. (The family is close but prefers to keep money matters personal and private)

The money would truly be a gift, it's going to be given to the USC anyways in order to pay for anything wedding related that the USC and her fiance wish to indulge in. (wedding reception, honeymoon, new car, house downpayment etc.) It would simply be given now rather than later at the time that the fiance is present in the U.S and the plans are moving forward.

Anyone see anything that would cause a problem with getting the sponsorship by the USC done this way ? Banks have to report anything more than 10k being moved between or into accounts, so if they( the government ) looked into it closely they'd see the money as being newly there and not from saved income.

The theoretical USC would like to keep the family happy But will do whatever is more proper and viewed more kindly by the powers that be....

Assets used as qualifications are valued at 1/3 of income. If you are $2000 "short", you would need $6000 in bank deposits or assets to make this up.

That's the good news.

If you do this with a transfer of money, then get a bank LETTER which states current balance and annual deposits for the last 12 months. I would suggest NOT submtting bank statements as a large deposit just before the interview could be seen as fraud. Also, remember, you have to do this all over again with the AOS. So if the intent is to deposit your "gift" of wedding money and then spend it on the wedding, what will you use for the AOS?

Gary, question for you. I'm about to fill out my I-134. I lost my full-time job in April and now have a job that's contract (freelance) to potential full time. My employer wrote my letter stating that I started in May, get paid a day rate and have potential to be a full time hire. Now, if you multiply out the day rate fo the year it's way above the poverty level. BUT I'm worried that since it's temporary, without 100% sure of being full time in the future, it will be a problem. What do you think? Or, anyone else?

Employer letters are optional. State your income and provide check stubs. As long as your documents support your statement, there is no problem. You may also benefit from a bank letter stating deposits.

The only problem I see is that if you are "contracted" you are actually self-employed. Not that that's a real problem, certainly you are allowed to be self employed, but I do not see where an "employer letter" would benefit you. Also, stating a contract as an "employer" is not truthful really, even if it is your ONLY client, they are technically not your "employer". Better to state income from your self employed job and back it up with check stubs and bank letter. For a self employed person, bank letters serve as additional documentation of income. I would also recommend depositing your check in full, then take cash from the ATM, don't be keeping cash from your checks making your deposits and income appear less than they are.

Also, it is better to ask your questions separately so they get better responses

Good luck