Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
TSA regulations are still not 100% consistently applied from airport to airport within the US; they are absolutely inconsistent for US-bound flights originating in other countries. For example, the 3-oz liquid rule is not followed out of many Asian and African markets, while a small lighter ban is. TSA regs on their site often expire or change the same week they are posted, due to threat awareness.
Sure. 4 times to be exact, and now they recognize me. The taller guy is named Hernan! Both real young. They generally look for solo travelers, especially young guys. They’re actually pretty cool, and downright personable compared to US Customs in Miami. I’m back and forth at least once each month through LIR, so i carry just a small backpack. Not good in MIA (though never once a problem in ATL or HOU.) You might be annoyed, but this is the manual version of the stuff going on in all US airports. Much rather be asked a couple of questions (gives me a chance to practice my Spanish) than a retinaFRS that awaits me when i get home. Gotta be a wise-guy and ask – did you think it iswas okay to take a lighter onto a US bound plane? (and the fact that you may have done it before doesn’t count as an answer 🙂
Good post, and thought-provoking perspectives. I’d question whether the premise that CR is a relatively fearless society, based on the existence or non-existence of physical barriers, may be inaccurate. I have friends in Liberia literally with barbed wire on the top and sides of their house, and not one but two gates (outer and inner) out front. In Santa Cruz, I feel like I’m going into Ft. Knox simply trying to park my truck inside an interior driveway. Don’t even start on San Jose. I’d argue that all of these domiciles, both Tico and Gringo, are gated in an attempt to keep something perceived or real, out; the only difference is how far the gates are from the house, and how ornate they are.
Arbitrary is the key word when shipping to CR. I ship at least every 3 weeks to CR, via DHL. The reason I do this is that the DHL flight arrives in SJO at 5:45 AM the following morning. I have the recipient “meet” the package at the Aduana and immediately pay the impuesta. They then return to Guanacaste with the package- often the next day! A couple things- this is expensive. My packages are no larger than 12x12x12 and no heavier than 11 lbs. This will cost about $380. Ensure that every single piece is itemized on your CI – every piece. If one single item is not on there, the entire shipment is suspect and will be delayed. I always include receipts (easy for new stuff, difficult for old stuff)- helps me accurately calculate the duty but I’m always under! And DO NOT DHL to anywhere other than San Jose- its not going to get there no matter what DHL says. Once the plane lands DHL is done with it.
No comparison- I found the prices at least 2-3 times higher, for the higher end items, in CR. BTW, I just brought in 4 brand new, in the box, MacBook Pros. Declared them all, and paid about 35% duty on each (Total $1,650). Made easier by having all doc and receipts. Also 1 30″ Apple monitor, which i couldn’t find in San Jose.
When my sister visits us in Guanacaste, she chooses to wear her hijab. It’s actually amusing to notice the looks, especially when she is up in the rondel with us watching the bulls! Nonetheless, her manner of dress provides a great opportunity to respond to the many Tico questions we receive- their look is even more incredulous when her responses are in fluent Spanish!
I’m not certain how many people here know Muslim families, have children who attend school with Muslim kids, have lived in Muslim societies or have loved ones who practice the faith of Islam. How many have read the Koran and attempted to digest its infinite contrasting academic, historical and theological interpretations? Sans such interaction, I’m not at all surprised nor disappointed by the admonitions of resident sages like Sprite. But I do want to quickly consider one quote from a post of his- [i]”Let me first say that I do not approve any religion and specifically disapprove of the Muslim religion or culture and I would move away from any place that is predominantly of that fanatic and zealous culture. I am not tying to offend anyone.”[/i] -If you do not “approve” of any religion, you can’t specifically disapprove of any single one. -YOU don’t get to “approve” religious practices; only government entities like China and Iran, and loose affiliations like the Taliban have that privilege. -Your purposeful association of religion with culture is ignorant; your description of fanaticism and zealousness is downright bellicose. -And finally, yes, you ARE trying to offend- when you foist such views in a public forum with a pre-emptive mea culpa, you know exactly what you are doing.
[b]what makes you so sure the IRS doesn’t have an agent here fulltime? i’ve been told by several people, who should know, that they do! same for the CIA.[/b]
In my role within the IRS – up until 2008 – I was responsible for developing strategy for the deployment, communications and inter-agency interface needs for IRS staff. More relevant, my wife was a director for the FDIC in bank supervision- in addition to closing non-performing banks in the US, she worked closely with the IRS globally to assist foreign countries establish banking regulations to protect depositors (yes, even including American deposits on foreign soil.)
I understand your friends, confidants and colleagues are relaying information to you regarding the IRS, and the existence of a US agent/installation there full-time. And I’ll say one more time, many IRS agents pass through Central American nations frequently to work with embassy-based personnel on a number of engagements. (BTW, when they do work on such engagements, they don’t typically “advertise” their work assignment and rarely, their agency affiliation.) But there is no full-time, embassy-based IRS installation anywhere in Central America. DEA- yes. Agriculture- yes. FDA- yes.
But maybe I’m wrong. Would you guys mind sharing the name or title of the employee(s), in a PM? He or she would have transferred from the US, or trained in Washington, Chicago or Atlanta at some point, most likely Operations Support where we would have crossed paths.
Before anyone gets the impression that I relish in the petty, my original participation in this thread was simply to question the notion of surreptitious activity, vis-a-vis the HIRE act, on the part of the IRS in Costa Rica.
The IRS does not have full-time staff based in Costa Rica. I’ll assume since he is a co-worker of yours that either a) you are an employee of the IRS also or b) he is working for the IRS in a part-time (contractual) capacity, and serving as your co-worker in another endeavor. Can’t be certain about the first scenario, and if the second, he needs to be pretty careful about skirting agency moonlighting conflicts of interest. (Take a look at the current clampdown on CIA moonlighting COI.)
DEA, INS and other US agencies do have full-time personnel in Costa Rica. Not the IRS.
And please, read my posts carefully. I stated that a Costa Rican financial institution will cooperate in response to a US reporting obligation, a US judgement, action or request. My desire was to differentiate such activities (responses) from independently-initiated activity by a Costa Rican financial institution, or the Costa Rican government.
[i]So, let’s recap. Capital controls are in fact not yet here, but the pressure is on and the HIRE act is another step to restrict the economic freedom of Americans.[/i]
And I was beginning to feel so positive until I got to the last paragraph. Oh well.
[i]Yesterday we ran a story published over at zerohedge.com that made the claim that capital controls are now here and fully enforced by the law. After further review, however, it appears that claim is inaccurate. The HIRE act is not about capital controls, it’s really about enforcing IRS rules.[/i]
As I’ve tried to state, your conclusion is, and always has been, precisely the revenue-side intent of the HIRE act. The term “after further review” is instructive and telling; the implication here is that certain claims made on the intent of HIRE were shaped prior to factual, non-political and non-emotional analysis. At best, this implies that the claimant did not do their homework, does not understand the particulars or has no desire to understand the intent. At worst, it could imply a deliberate attempt to mislead or stoke certain convictions.At the end of the day, I implore people to gather information from a variety of sources (and, hopefully, the originating source) prior to positing a position.
The IRS does not have full-time staff based in Costa Rica, embassy-based or otherwise. They do work hand in hand with embassy staff and contractors (American and Costa Rican) on in-country tax legislation, and with resident financial institutions on active investigations. There are in-country based IRS installations in Germany, France and a sizeable presence in China.
It may be subtle terminology (to some) but Costa Rica does not establish, decree or rule on allegations of American tax fraud; Costa Rica(and other nations) merely satisfies U.S. financial reporting obligations. They would “hand over” tax evaders subject to their policies of extradition, much as they would an American citizen convicted of other classifiable felonies determined in an American court.
The policy of international financial transparency, as I stated in an earlier post, is a well documented US stratagem. It was directionally outlined during our current President’s candidacy, and is now more thoroughly manifesting itself in IRS code and other financial conventions.
Please note that I did not opine on whether such policy is good, bad, effective or ominous.
SueandChris: the 30% withholding on [u]INCOME[/u][u][/u] from foreign accounts takes place one of two ways-
1. Your Costa Rican financial institution REFUSES to comply with US tax code by failing to ask you to waive your right to account secrecy, or
2. You waive your right to secrecy and you report your financial holdings during the normal tax reporting sequence (and you don’t meet the myriad of other exemptable statuses.)That said:
1. Yes, if the total value of your financial assets exceed $50K during a taxable year, you owe 30% on the income generated.
2. The $50K is an aggregate number, so you can hit the threshhold via multiple accounts.
3. It does NOT only apply when transferring $$$ back to the US. Your $50K + only has to be credited to the foreign institution and generate income.
4. I am not sure, but I think there will be exceptions made for one-time/limited transfers. However, you still must waive your right to secrecy/privacy via your institution.
5. Privacy/secrecy waivers will be the responsibility of the foreign financial institution to their foreign (i.e. US) account holders.To all of you lamenting our loss of freedom, these conditions are the direct result of the behavior (free market?) of UBS, and their absolute flaunting and evasion of US tax responsibilities. By the way, the clause which stipulated that even discussions with advisors contemplating deposits in foreign institutions should be disclosable, was pulled from this bill. I think the legislators really didn’t want to push you guys over the edge.
[i]”With very little pomp and circumstance . . .” [/i]The BIPARTISAN HIRE legislation was signed into law with the same amount of “pomp” as the myriad of other tax code changes added or updated almost daily. IRS code is available for consumption, sans political hyperbole, in readily accessible locations and formats. Interesting that the focus of this thread is on the revenue side wthout a hint of its anticipated benefits within the employment mandate. Interesting- though not surprising. While a chat forum doesn’t provide the pallete nor decorum for an intelligent (read: fact-based) discussion on the merits of complex U.S. tax code, I’m left to consider how quickly such attempts devolve into poorly constructed arguments on the evaporation of American rights and freedoms in the last 14 months. And (usually,) from the non-participative sanctuaries of Costa Rica. Lamenting your loss of freedom(s) while collecting tax-incentivized pensions, voting in abstentia in free U.S elections, and watching from afar the orderly transition of power. But that’s right, you might lose a tax haven. Real freedoms.
I’m sorry to digress- I only meant to point out that there is really nothing sinister here- HIRE was debated publicly, open for legislative input (if you had the interest,) well documented and signed into law by the POTUS. You just had to look for it.
The national banks have what is called an implicit and unlimited guarantee on deposits. For practical purposes, then, deposits “will” be covered in the event of a bank loss. Most importantly, as it lends to an understanding of the comparative differences between the US and CR banking systems, the US Government does NOT print money to cover bank losses (be it from their collective culos or elsewhere!) The FDIC if fully funded by institution premiums, and from held Treasury securities. Many proposals are in place around Central and Latin America around deposit insurance and its role in investment, the critical role of which we Americans learned after 1933. Trust in CR’s ability to protect your deposits is up to you. Remember that many Americans don’t trust the FDIC’s ability, which is one reason the FDIC doesn’t publish the “watch” list for troubled banks- there is typically a line outside when such information is leaked, comprised of folks wanting their money in their hand!
