I am writing in response to "Chucky's" letter to the Editor
"all immigration attorneys" as financial benefactors of 245(i) partial
"amnesty" for designated aliens.
Just to give you the big picture: First, many lawyers practicing
law are employed by non-profit organizations including religious, legal
services, human rights civil rights and other organizations earning less
enviable salary. Second, many lawyers volunteer to help indigent clients
pro bono, non-fee paying basis. Despite the fact that I am an
lawyer, I personally favor "legal immigration" and preferential treatment
those foreign nationals who have complied with our immigration laws. After
that, I favor advocacy to change draconian laws to solve problematic immigration
policies such as the second preference family petition (LPR permanent
nuclear family separation five year + wait. I for one, helped dozens of
families at a legal clinic. Many had one LPR here and would have been
separated from spouses and children (some spouses/children were in the US
legally, but would have had to leave for many years). They were able to stay
by filing for 245(i) LIFE ACT relief. As one of many volunteer attorneys
a legal services clinic, we helped individuals who came in without charging
fees. As for other immigration attorneys who did collect fees, I'm sure
"Chucky," expect if you do work for others who can afford to pay you, that
expect to be paid for your services. Broad generalizations about any class
people will always be subject to exceptions.
On another topic, (taxation/children) statements were made in
Immigration Daily letters to the Editor several times in the past that earned income
or investment income attributed to children is not taxable. As lawyers, I
believe it is ethically important for us to step forward to open a
statements made that could be false or misleading involving the law. (In
past, I wrote in to bring to light the various English and non-English
laws introduced or passed in various State and Federal legislatures).
While I am not a tax lawyer, (perhaps another reader is), I vehemently disagree
with statements made that "children's income is not taxable in the US."
For example, if a three year old child appears in an advertisement (for
compensation), he or she will have applicable state and federal taxes over
a certain "floor" dollar amount, including social security, etc. held out of
the pay by the casting agency. If the child has a college fund UTMA (Uniform
Trusts for Minors Act) set up by a parent or guardian, and the fund earns
dividends or capital gains, the non-earned income is subject to tax. If a trust or
other investments provide non-earned income attributed to a child, the
income will be subject to taxation. Yes, income below a minimum "floor" might not be
subject to taxation and income may be taxed at a lower rate than a parent's
taxable rate, "kiddie tax," but a child's income, earned or attributed is
subject to taxation in the US.
Share this page
Bookmark this page
The leading immigration law publisher - over 50000 pages of free information!
© Copyright 1995- American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM