tourist visa not renewed in Colonia!

[Bajo_cero2]

Taxation may also be a "big thing" for some temporary residents as well if migraciones is now requiring those with the visa rentista to be "in country" 180 days of the year for the renewal of their visas.

Citigirl:
When you apply for rentista you have 3 options:
a) That you rent real state
b) Savings
c) A foreing salary.

They only acept option a) because they can tax you.

If you go for citizenship you should evidence you have an honest way of living. So, if you have real state abroad you don´tmust declare it and you don´t pay those taxes. You can declare some savings, that´s enough.

Once you are a citizen, if you like, you go to AFIP, you fill an affidavit and you pay taxes according to this. verage is about 1000 dollars a year.

If you lie in your affidavit and you pay less taxes and AFIP doesn´t realizes, good for you. There are about 300 billion dollars abroad of Argentinian´s saving without paying taxes nowadays.

I think Bajo_cero2 wrote that leaving the country during the two year period does not interrupt the "residency" but I can see how this might be open to interpretation by the judge (if you don't have a DNI and are gone for extended periods). Those who have been making the day trips to Colonia for a couple years are probably OK, but I agree that it's pointless to continue to go there.

The trips to Colonia and the trips in general doesn´t interrups the 2 years of continious residence.

When I submitted my "application" for citizenship yesterday the woman who filled out the form asked for the date of my first entry into Argentina (it's in my DNI as well as my passport but they did not ask for the latter). I believe that is the start date for the two year residency requirement for everyone applying for citizenship, whether they have a DNI or not (my temporary residency was granted almost six moths after my first arrival and that date is also in my DNI).

Touché!

Regards

 

[nikad]

I'd still say that going to Colonia is a bit more legal than just staying illegally. I'm not really interested in whether or not the 180-day limit has been substantiated (Read again: I don't care). However, getting an immigration official to give you a stamp authorizing you for another 90 days -- albeit a loophole -- is certainly more legal than just staying in the country illegally. After all, the government via its representative is giving you its permission to remain another 90 days. So, can we put citygirl's public execution on hold for the time being?

Sorry but things are not more legal, less legal, more illegal or less illegal. If you want to write your own book of rules, it is ok, but in real life things are legal or illegal. Your interpretation of local laws is a personal matter, only a judge can interpret the law. You should be aware that you are giving wrongful advice and information that can get a fellow expat in trouble.

 

[Kirst]

Guys, I can't believe how much debate has gone on with my original post!

However I want to say a HUGE HUGE HUGE thankyou to everyone, including Citygirl who pointed out the reason for my 3 days ie they cant override the 90 days. I am sure there are so many people who never knew this, so at the very least this post will help others not make the same mistake!!!

I have had so many emails and kind and hopeful words from so many people including all of you and if I hadnt had these, I would probably just have gone to Uruguay like a fool and been stuck there!

So no more arguements please!! This post I am sure is a very helpful lesson to all of us in the 90 day category!

I am taking advice on residency and agree that the 90 day runs are no long term solution.

I shall keep you posted on developments of course!!!

gracias y ciao

 

[starlucia]

Argentina taxes its citizens on worldwide income. The specific tax liabilities and penalties that may be incurred by a person getting citizenship will obviously vary from person to person and also whether or not there are tax treaties between Argentina and whatever original country of citizenship and what assets and work someone has in another country. My point is simply that people can/should investigate that carefully and discuss with a lawyer and accountant before obtaining a 2nd citizenship to be aware of any/all financial implications.

FWIW - I was recently chatting with an immigration lawyer who was encouraging me to go for citizenship after marriage. When I mentioned that I didn't want to become a citizen because of tax liabilities, he said, "Between you and me, it's not a concern. Argentina has enough trouble collecting taxes within the country; it'll never get around to tracking the income you make abroad."

 

[Johnno]

Starlucia's post does have me thinking - once I get married (hopefully in the next few months) should I be going for permanent residency or going for citizenship ? At the moment I am earning my income back in Australia via the telephone - and although I have a local university prepared to give me as many hours as I want I am actually thinking I will only take a few hours and later on when they are employing me officially rather than ''in negro'' that becomes my legal employment for other purposes...

I know its probably been answered elsewhere but what are the main pros/cons when considering permanent residency versus citizenship ?

Johnno.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

1) In both cases you have to pay taxes. So, here is no difference.

2) Permanent residency allows deportation, there is no deportation for citizens. If you have a criminal issue, DGM starts the deportation procedure. A criminal issue might be a car crash where somebody die for example, you don´t need to be a criminal.

3) Permanent residency can be taken away, citizenship not.

4) Being a foreingner you are not full protected because: discrimination (there are many jobs where you have to be a citizen for being hired, even it can be claimed at Court, you by pass it being a citizen), reciprocity (for example, the US deports 2000 illegal argentinian sending them to jail before deportation, Argentina might do the same).

5) If there is a war: (think in long terms, the world migh change a lot in the next 40 years)

a) having citizenship you are Argentinian in Argentina. If you have permanent residency you might finish in a concentration camp.

b) Having permanent residency you might lose all your money and assets. Confiscation of the property of enemies is standard all around the world. As I mention, having citizenship, here you are Argentinian.

6) If you are legal, the procedure for citizenship is less bourocratic and for free no lawyer needed (YOU DON´T NEED A LAWYER IF YOU HAVE DNI). The procedure for permanent residency is more bourocratic, you have to pay a fee, the translation, the criminal record, etc.

7) When you sell real state you don´t pay the extra tax if you are a citizen.

However, as I always say, citizenship is an strategy I developed for irregulars who don´t full fit the requirements for residency. In your case, it is more a personal desicion.

Regards

 

[sesamosinsal]

Sorry but things are not more legal, less legal, more illegal or less illegal. If you want to write your own book of rules, it is ok, but in real life things are legal or illegal. Your interpretation of local laws is a personal matter, only a judge can interpret the law. You should be aware that you are giving wrongful advice and information that can get a fellow expat in trouble.

Well, as far as I am concerned, staying in Argentina past the 90 days they give you is a illegal. Leaving the country, coming back, and getting another stamp from the Argentine government, however, is not illegal because: 1.) The Argentine government is authorizing your stay for another 90 days, and (2.) I've yet to see any information from the Argentine government that limits tourist stays to 180 days a year. The government's own website does not explicitly state this, unlike most countries. Thus, the term "less illegal" was bad wording on my part. If the government doesn't say that there are 180 day limits for tourists in a 12-month period, and if it doesn't enforce such a law, then it is not the tourist's problem. On the other hand, if a tourist deliberately overstays his/her visa, she/he is clearly violating a law, as the Argentine government clearly did not authorize it.

 

[sesamosinsal]

You are wrong, listen to me, I am a lawyer, law changed, there isn´t any loophole now, look:

ARTICULO 61.- Cuando se verifique que un extranjero hubiere desnaturalizado los motivos que autorizaron su ingreso al territorio argentino o permaneciera en éste vencido el plazo de permanencia acordado,

So, both situations are equally illegal. It is useless.

This is clear like water and here is where citigirl is 100% wrong.

So, a legal advice is:
a) Overstay;
b) Go for residency;
c) Go for citizenship.

Regards

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Overstaying the visa is clearly illegal. However, if a DNM official gives a "permatourist" another 90 days, how is the tourist doing anything "illegal"? If people want to respect Argentina's laws, then they should apply for residency under another category or leave at the end of their 90 day stamp. Whether they come back or not is up to them. Deliberately overstaying the visa, on the other hand, is most certainly illegal.

 

[sesamosinsal]

I find it amusing that the "legal" advice from a lawyer is to be "illegal." *sigh* haha

 

[AkBill]

I agree, if the person working at the border on behalf of argentina immigration gives you another 90 day stamp, with a new date by which you have to leave the country, how is it illegal? It's their fault decision to give you another stamp

Of course in argentina anything can happen

But from some kind of moral point of view getting a new 90 day stamp is much more legal than just overstaying permanently, in my opinion