For proof of funds, would a joint bank account with me and my spouse be enough?

[CinderSoul 4]

The current scenario for us is that we are waiting for our application to be processed, but I am unfortunately unemployed right now. My spouse (who is the applicant), however, makes well above the required amount for proof of funds, and their pay is in USD. If we combine our finances through a joint bank account, would that be able to serve as proof that we have the necessary funds? Or would it be better to seek a co-sponsor in our case?

[appleblossom 3,769]

2 minutes ago, CinderSoul said:

The current scenario for us is that we are waiting for our application to be processed, but I am unfortunately unemployed right now. My spouse (who is the applicant), however, makes well above the required amount for proof of funds, and their pay is in USD. If we combine our finances through a joint bank account, would that be able to serve as proof that we have the necessary funds? Or would it be better to seek a co-sponsor in our case?

 

Are you using assets only? If so, the bank account would work, but not if you’re using income. 

 

Will your spouse’s income continue from the same source when he moves to the US, i.e. will his job move with him?

[CinderSoul 4]

15 minutes ago, appleblossom said:

 

Are you using assets only? If so, the bank account would work, but not if you’re using income. 

 

Will your spouse’s income continue from the same source when he moves to the US, i.e. will his job move with him?

 

 

In technical terms yes, he is a contractor working remotely for an American company in a work-from-anywhere model, so they would have no reason to leave that job once he moves. In practical terms maybe he would have to negotiate a higher salary or find another job to match the cost of living in the US, but that shouldn't matter necessarily, right?

[appleblossom 3,769]

14 minutes ago, CinderSoul said:

 

 

In technical terms yes, he is a contractor working remotely for an American company in a work-from-anywhere model, so they would have no reason to leave that job once he moves. In practical terms maybe he would have to negotiate a higher salary or find another job to match the cost of living in the US, but that shouldn't matter necessarily, right?

 

It would matter if he’ll be finding another job. You can only use the beneficiaries income if it will be continuing from the same source, otherwise it doesn’t count. 

 

Although it looks as though you’ve only just submitted the I-130? So you’ve got tons of time to figure this out, hopefully by the time you get to the NVC stage you’ll have another job. 

 

Good luck. 

Edited April 3 by appleblossom

[pushbrk 13,361]

4 hours ago, appleblossom said:

 

It would matter if he’ll be finding another job. You can only use the beneficiaries income if it will be continuing from the same source, otherwise it doesn’t count. 

 

Although it looks as though you’ve only just submitted the I-130? So you’ve got tons of time to figure this out, hopefully by the time you get to the NVC stage you’ll have another job. 

 

Good luck. 

I concur, but by usual definition, a contractor is self employed, and receives "business revenue" which is not "income" until it appears on a tax return, minus business expenses.  Assets and income are not the same thing. You need three times the income requirement in liquid assets to qualify.  If you have those, that works.  Better to get a job in the interim though.

[appleblossom 3,769]

7 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

I concur, but by usual definition, a contractor is self employed

 

Ah, maybe, I’m only going on the UK definition, where a contractor only working for one company is usually deemed to be a de facto employee. No idea how it works in other countries. 

[pushbrk 13,361]

18 minutes ago, appleblossom said:

 

Ah, maybe, I’m only going on the UK definition, where a contractor only working for one company is usually deemed to be a de facto employee. No idea how it works in other countries. 

A foreign contract worker for a US Company would  not be considered an employee, as not federal income tax or Social Security are withheld.  They would be "self employed". The same is true if not a foreigner and working as "contractor" in the USA.  No withholding.  They pay directly through their tax returns.

Edited April 3 by pushbrk

[appleblossom 3,769]

14 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

A foreign contract worker for a US Company would  not be considered an employee, as not federal income tax or Social Security are withheld.  They would be "self employed". The same is true if not a foreigner and working as "contractor" in the USA.  No withholding.  They pay directly through their tax returns.

 

Yes, as I said I was looking at it from a UK POV. I don’t know where the OP’s husband is, so no idea on if they’d be considered a contractor or employee there for tax purposes.

[CinderSoul 4]

1 hour ago, appleblossom said:

 

Yes, as I said I was looking at it from a UK POV. I don’t know where the OP’s husband is, so no idea on if they’d be considered a contractor or employee there for tax purposes.

 

He is Brazilian. I'm honestly not entirely sure about the laws there, however. 

 

1 hour ago, pushbrk said:

I concur, but by usual definition, a contractor is self employed, and receives "business revenue" which is not "income" until it appears on a tax return, minus business expenses.  Assets and income are not the same thing. You need three times the income requirement in liquid assets to qualify.  If you have those, that works.  Better to get a job in the interim though.

 

I do plan on getting another job as soon as I can, for sure. My question is, from my understanding proof of funds can be proved through income plus assets, correct? In that case, would the amount saved in our joint account be able to help prove the required amount? So for example, in case my income doesn't reach the yearly requirement, could I send bank statements with the money in our checking account as well? 

 

[pushbrk 13,361]

2 hours ago, appleblossom said:

 

Yes, as I said I was looking at it from a UK POV. I don’t know where the OP’s husband is, so no idea on if they’d be considered a contractor or employee there for tax purposes.

It doesn't matter whether his country, Brazil, considers him an employee. It matters how the USA categorizes him.  He IS self employed, as far as the USA is concerned.  Now, if he had an offer of actual employment, instead of contract work from the SAME COMPANY he contracts for now, that would save the day.

[Boiler 46,760]

Certainly in IT many people set themselves up as Contractors rather then employees for tax benefits, same sort of thing happens in the US.

[pushbrk 13,361]

2 hours ago, Boiler said:

Certainly in IT many people set themselves up as Contractors rather then employees for tax benefits, same sort of thing happens in the US.

Yes, and it's highly beneficial for tax purposes when working remotely.  The downside is ever dollar of tax deduction taken advantage of, reduces total income by the same dollar.  Often this hurts sponsorship qualification.  But I will mention again for any reader.  It only matters how the USA sees his situation.  A "contractor" is NOT an employee.  That doesn't mean his income won't work, because the revenue will continue from the same source.  It's just a bit more complicated to document.

[appleblossom 3,769]

16 hours ago, pushbrk said:

It doesn't matter whether his country, Brazil, considers him an employee. It matters how the USA categorizes him.  He IS self employed, as far as the USA is concerned.  Now, if he had an offer of actual employment, instead of contract work from the SAME COMPANY he contracts for now, that would save the day.

 

My point was that in the UK as a contractor working for just one employer you’d usually be deemed an employee with the company taking deductions from salary, sorting your taxes, giving you paid holidays, benefits, etc. So that person could legitimately say they are an employee to the US government. Other countries may be the same, which is why I mentioned it. But never mind! 

[pushbrk 13,361]

3 hours ago, appleblossom said:

 

My point was that in the UK as a contractor working for just one employer you’d usually be deemed an employee with the company taking deductions from salary, sorting your taxes, giving you paid holidays, benefits, etc. So that person could legitimately say they are an employee to the US government. Other countries may be the same, which is why I mentioned it. But never mind! 

I see your point now.  What you just described is actual employment, but this person works as a contractor for a US company. It doesn't matter where he lives.  He's still self employed.  You cannot treat a person with no authorization to work in the USA, as a US "employee".