Bajo_cero2
Registered
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2010
- Messages
- 7,941
- Likes
- 4,371
steveinbsas said:Are you sure?
Active income applies to someone who is actually working and receiving wages or a salary. Wouldn't someone with active income in Argentina need a work visa and need to be working for a company registered to business in Argentina?
If a person is living in Argentina and receiving income from a foreign company but is not working then the income would be dividends or shared profits. Both are passive sources of income and are acceptable for the visa rentista.
Absolutely. There is a lot of misunderstanding because migration agents who give info at the Retiro Building have only high school studies and that´s it. There should be a lawyer because is all about legal concepts. They are more like Mc Donald´s employees.
Let´s analize the law:
[FONT="]
b) Rentista: quien solvente su estadía en el país con recursos propios traídos desde el exterior, de las rentas que éstos produzcan o de cualquier otro ingreso lícito proveniente de fuentes externas. [/FONT]
There are three situation accepted by the law:
1) [FONT="]"quien solvente su estadía en el país con recursos propios traídos desde el exterior" It means savings. Savings aren´t pasive because you are expending you capital not living from bank interest.
[/FONT]2) "[FONT="]de las rentas que éstos produzcan[/FONT]", this is pasive 100%.
3) "[FONT="]o de cualquier otro ingreso lícito proveniente de fuentes externas[/FONT]",This is active 100%. I translate just in case "Any other legal income from abroad". You can be working abroad and living in Argentina. If you are a writer you can live wherever you want, right? I you make your money at Forex it is the same.
The idea is that you must prove you are not making your money here.
I was at the Retiro building last monday and of course the answer I receive was, only the money for an abroad apartment rent is valid. When this agent finally irritated me enough he called his superior who was as irritated as me just because she had to leave her office but she confirmed my interpretation.
The main problem is that there is not mechanism to access to their lawyers.
But there are two mechanisms created for this cases in the civil law procedure code. The first one is called "knowledge trial" and you propose an interpretation of the law and the judge give his opinion and this is enforceable.
The second one is the amparo. The amparo is like the british class action but for one person. This is a protection against the State. If they denied your application you go to court and argue that it is arbitrary or a mistake or ilegal and this action from a member of the state is affecting your rights and they call a lawyer from migration and he and you lawyer debate about it and the judge decides. The way that migration interpretations this law is so clumsy that there are big chances of wining the case.
For example, if the new regulation about retirement resident is too high, amparo can be used to do not apply this new amount because is arbitrary and it is easy to explain why.
But, one clarification, in our juridic system the judge decision is valid only for your case. This is not like the American precedent system where one case is obligatory for all the judges.
Regards