5 Americans rejected at the border yesterday

[Rich One]

In your example, you would not really earn $375 per month. Say the rate of inflation in the US is 2.5%, your $300k is worth $7500 less at the end of the year ($625 per month). So in reality you'd already be losing $250 per month before anyone taxed you.

Very true.. same situation as in Argentina the Interest paid on CD's ( 50% ?) does not cover the inflation rate.in 2019.
see graph below
These postings below elsewhere

 

[toongeorges]

In your example, you would not really earn $375 per month. Say the rate of inflation in the US is 2.5%, your $300k is worth $7500 less at the end of the year ($625 per month). So in reality you'd already be losing $250 per month before anyone taxed you.

That is not really a concern, because a stable company will be able to rise its prices in line with inflation and the stock price would inherently follow the inflation.

If instead of stocks, you invest in bonds, yes you have the problem that in the current economic climate interests do not pay for the inflation.

 

[semigoodlookin]

It is not a tactic, the visa run is a mistake.

I don't disagree, although it's low resolution. It is only a mistake if you are denied entry and/or care if you are denied entry. For some people - and evidence supports this - visa/border runs were not a mistake. For some, like the five Americans of this thread, it was. Also, please explain why a tactic and mistake are mutually exclusive?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I don't disagree, although it's low resolution. It is only a mistake if you are denied entry and/or care if you are denied entry. For some people - and evidence supports this - visa/border runs were not a mistake. For some, like the five Americans of this thread, it was. Also, please explain why a tactic and mistake are mutually exclusive?

Because the whole idea of the visa run is based on the mistake that doing that, you stay legally, that is incorrect.

You jeopardize your re entry while if you overstay, you pay the fine and that’s it. The risk of a denial of re entry is the same.

In the case of this 5 Americans, they achieved success in the re entry after they traveled to the consulate in Chile and presented the appeal I wrote, while I interposed an habeas corpus in Mendoza but the inconvenience was unnecessary.

We have read in the past years several cases were the re entry failed even with other lawyers working.

 

[Stantucker]

Belgium never ever had a wealth tax! Taxing wealth is very controversial here and has so far always been blocked. Having a wealth tax is a wet dream of the socialists, but liberals and conservatives are against it and have refused to form governments that wanted to introduce such a tax. That said, capital in Belgium is relatively highly taxed in other ways: 30% on dividends, each transaction on the stock market has a small tax, there is an inheritance tax and a tax on real estate.

You were probably confusing Belgium with the Netherlands, where they have a 1,2% wealth tax, but none of the other taxes on capital (except inheritance taxes).

Here's the link to the La Nacion article I referenced, which it looks like was actually from BBC Mundo.

Los tres países de América Latina que cobran impuesto a la riqueza (y qué resultados tuvieron)

Los tres países de América Latina que cobran impuesto a la riqueza (y qué resultados tuvieron)

www.lanacion.com.ar

And this the quote in which Belgium is mentioned as one of the four European which still has a wealth tax:

"Y esa es una de las razones que explicaría por qué en Europa varios países lo han eliminado y actualmente solo lo aplican cuatro: España, Noruega, Suiza y Bélgica."

 

[toongeorges]

Los tres países de América Latina que cobran impuesto a la riqueza (y qué resultados tuvieron)

Los tres países de América Latina que cobran impuesto a la riqueza (y qué resultados tuvieron)

www.lanacion.com.ar

And this the quote in which Belgium is mentioned as one of the four European which still has a wealth tax

The article is wrong.

The previous Belgian government introduced as a compromise a tax of 0,15% of holdings on stock accounts, but this tax was easy to avoid legally. One way was to take your stocks from your stock account and register them in the shareholder registry. Also the supreme court annulled the law, so the tax on stock accounts does not exist anymore.

The Netherlands has a pure wealth tax, I am not sure why this country is not mentioned.

 

[oaktown]

Welll, well, well, no. Read the law.

A. When the law refers to assets abroad, it means to assets that were transferred from Argentina, not wealth you created abroad before coming to Argentina.

B. The law refers to domiciled persons in Argentina as tax payers. Here you are in a mistake: legal residence means domicile / address in Argentina.

C. Citizenship, instead, it is based in a politic relationship but not address. It means that once you have the citizenship, you make your DNI with an address abroad and that’s it. Then you are not a tax payer for this tax.

Bajo Cero,
Do you have a link to the law itself? I'd like to read it.

 

[Alby]

Unfortunatley, Bajo Cero's information here (and in other threads where he repeats the information) is incorrect / out-of-date. The information was correct until 27 December, but the law has now changed. You can find it here: https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/224184/20191228

The relevant part (for the Bienes Personales/Wealth tax) is Titulo II (i.e., articles 9-13). Article 9 article refers back Article 17 to an earlier (1997) law here: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/0-4999/365/texact.htm). The earlier (1997) law in its Article 17 explains the "domicile" concept to which Bajo Cero refers and which allowed a citizen to escape the Wealth Tax on their overseas assets by nominating an overseas address: such a citizen was deemed to be domiciled outside Argentina and the Wealth Tax was, accordingly, paid only on any assets inside Argentina.

The bad news is the final article (Article 13) of Titulo II of the new law (again, here https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/224184/20191228) which says:

ARTÍCULO 13.- Toda referencia que efectúen las normas legales, reglamentarias y complementarias sobre el nexo de vinculación “domicilio” con relación al impuesto sobre los bienes personales, debe entenderse referida a “residencia” de conformidad a lo previsto en el artículo 116 y siguientes de la Ley de Impuesto a las Ganancias, texto ordenado en 2019 y sus modificaciones.

This article was added at the last minute by the Parliament and has the effect of annuling the concept of domicilio from the 1997 law. Henceforth, regardless of whether you are a citizen or hold a Migraciones-issued permanent or temporary residencia, once you meet the minimum AFIP residencia requirements to pay income tax--which others have explained is 6 months in the country in the tax (calendar) year--you are also liable to pay the Wealth Tax on your overseas assets (i.e., your assets outside Argentina that exceed the threshold of 3 million pesos, or roughly USD40,000).

The only exception would be someone on a temporary Migraciones residency where that residency is based on an employment contract of less than five years, or someone who finds shelter in a double tax agreement that specifically prevents a wealth tax being levied twice in one year on the same person in Argentina and in the country the asset is located.

Those on a Rentista residency are the most exposed, having already declared an asset overseas to another agency of government (DNM).

Foreigners can no longer protect from the Wealth Tax on assets in their home country by taking out Argentine citizenship and listing an overseas address.

People can make their own judgements about the risks they run now or in the future of trying to evade this tax. By it is important that the out-of-date assertion contained in Bajo Cero's posts be corrected.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Unfortunatley, Bajo Cero's information here (and in other threads where he repeats the information) is incorrect / out-of-date. The information was correct until 27 December, but the law has now changed. You can find it here: https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/224184/20191228

The relevant part (for the Bienes Personales/Wealth tax) is Titulo II (i.e., articles 9-13). Article 9 article refers back Article 17 to an earlier (1997) law here: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/0-4999/365/texact.htm). The earlier (1997) law in its Article 17 explains the "domicile" concept to which Bajo Cero refers and which allowed a citizen to escape the Wealth Tax on their overseas assets by nominating an overseas address: such a citizen was deemed to be domiciled outside Argentina and the Wealth Tax was, accordingly, paid only on any assets inside Argentina.

The bad news is the final article (Article 13) of Titulo II of the new law (again, here https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/224184/20191228) which says:

ARTÍCULO 13.- Toda referencia que efectúen las normas legales, reglamentarias y complementarias sobre el nexo de vinculación “domicilio” con relación al impuesto sobre los bienes personales, debe entenderse referida a “residencia” de conformidad a lo previsto en el artículo 116 y siguientes de la Ley de Impuesto a las Ganancias, texto ordenado en 2019 y sus modificaciones.

This article was added at the last minute by the Parliament and has the effect of annuling the concept of domicilio from the 1997 law. Henceforth, regardless of whether you are a citizen or hold a Migraciones-issued permanent or temporary residencia, once you meet the minimum AFIP residencia requirements to pay income tax--which others have explained is 6 months in the country in the tax (calendar) year--you are also liable to pay the Wealth Tax on your overseas assets (i.e., your assets outside Argentina that exceed the threshold of 3 million pesos, or roughly USD40,000).

The only exception would be someone on a temporary Migraciones residency where that residency is based on an employment contract of less than five years, or someone who finds shelter in a double tax agreement that specifically prevents a wealth tax being levied twice in one year on the same person in Argentina and in the country the asset is located.

Those on a Rentista residency are the most exposed, having already declared an asset overseas to another agency of government (DNM).

Foreigners can no longer protect from the Wealth Tax on assets in their home country by taking out Argentine citizenship and listing an overseas address.

People can make their own judgements about the risks they run now or in the future of trying to evade this tax. By it is important that the out-of-date assertion contained in Bajo Cero's posts be corrected.

The thread regarding the bienes personales tax is this one:

Argentina's New Tax On Residents Global Wealth

Argentina's new tax law requires everyone living in Argentina to pay a tax of up to 2.25% of all their assets worldwide, every year. In 10 years you will pay 22.5% of all your savings, real estate, stocks, etc. It's tempting to think that we will just ignore it but from what I've read, failure...

baexpats.org

 

[TomAtAlki]

Please clarify: Is it true that the global wealth tax is only on money (assets) outside of Argentina that was taken out of Argentina? ie: if I own an apartment house in Dallas that I bought with funds that I earned in the US, that asset is not taxable. Is this true?

T/