Posts by vividranger8

William Cook7 said:Just bumping this thread since it’s getting a bit old—rules might have shifted by now.

I'm in a similar spot. I've been programming some hardware from my home office for a company based here in the US. They own the gear.

Let's say the total for the job comes out to $2,000.

What's the play here? Is it enough to just whip up an invoice in Microsoft Word and have them wire the money straight to my bank account?
Or is there a better way?

Also, regarding a PayPal Invoice (never used one before), what kind of cut does PayPal take in this scenario?

Thanks for the help, everyone.

Bizdo, what exactly are those mandatory line items? Does anyone have a template or an example I could look at?

Nah, not quite! You’ve gotta actually sign a contract with the company first, and then they pay you once the job is totally wrapped up. After that, you just report that foreign income to the IRS here in the States and take care of all your usual stuff—you know, taxes, social security, the whole nine yards.

feraljackal2 said:A friend of mine ran into a mess with her bank—they botched a transfer, and apparently, because the IRS flagged it as income, she lost her child tax credit benefits. It sounds wild, but that’s what she’s telling me. Fast forward about three or four months, and the bank calls her out of the blue demanding she pay the money back. Here’s the deal: it was supposed to be a simple refund from an online vendor. She bought something, it didn't show up, so they agreed on a refund. But instead of one transaction, two identical payments hit her account from the same seller. When she called him, he was actually pretty honest—he told her he only sent the money once. It looks like he tried to run a credit card reversal that failed, so he just sent a direct wire instead. The bank missed the error, processed both as valid deposits, and now they're coming after her for it. They aren't asking the vendor for the extra funds—just her. She already paid them back, but now she’s wondering: what if she hadn't? Would the bank have just sued her or frozen her accounts? And honestly, since this was clearly a massive banking blunder, shouldn't they be apologizing and covering the costs she incurred—like those lost benefits?

But wait, how can you even be sure it was the Bank's mistake? I mean, just to be absolutely certain, it would have to be an internal transaction within their own system—you know, without some other Bank or credit card processor getting involved in the middle. If there's another player in the mix, then there are way more suspects for where things actually went sideways.

George Lewis9 said:Chase will charge a €1 fee for any transfer coming from the European Union, regardless of whether it meets SEPA criteria or not. The only real difference is that SEPA hits your account faster—usually the same day or the next—whereas non-SEPA transfers in a different currency take longer to clear through the system.

Man, if that's actually how it works, then that's awesome!

Nathan Morris3 said:Why did you say "non-SEPA transaction"? I mean, the US is part of SEPA, right? You're just moving Euros from one country to another, so I guess that counts as a SEPA transaction. That’s probably why those folks in Austria look for such low fees, but American banks just charge way more—like double. And like I mentioned before, Addiko says it doesn't matter if you're sending to the US or somewhere else in the European Union. I suppose the whole point of SEPA is that costs should be the same across the entire zone. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding something?

Well, it's because when I'm collecting prepayments for vacation rentals, I always make sure the guest covers every single transaction fee. And the thing is, these specific transfers don't actually meet the requirements to be classified as a SEPA transaction—which makes them way more expensive. Just because the US is part of the system doesn't really change much if the currency we're dealing with isn't the Euro.

feraljackal2 said:Does anyone know an overseas bank where transferring funds between two different institutions in a foreign currency is actually free?

An international transfer within the European Union usually runs you about $20—so, honestly, it doesn't make any sense that an American domestic transfer would cost five times that much.

ruggedmaker2 said:First off, if the deadline for filing corporate taxes is April 30th, why on earth are you turning yours in at the start of January? At that point, you probably don't even have all your incoming invoices or everything that needs to be booked for the previous year finalized.

And yeah... obviously you have to keep your documents if you're a corporate taxpayer.
Some files need to be kept for 10 years, and some apparently need to be kept forever.

My advice? If you've got a business or a LLC and you're dealing with corporate taxes, find yourself a decent accountant who can explain all this to you.

Honestly, I’ve never heard of any corporate taxpayer submitting their forms that early.

Edit: I think the record-keeping requirements changed recently. I'm not an expert since we keep everything for ages at my office, but I think it's tied to the statute of limitations. Something like 11 years, maybe 16 for some things, and then some stuff stays on file indefinitely... or something like that. I'd have to double-check my work files.

The whole point is that the IRS has all these ways to mess with entrepreneurs and regular citizens whenever they feel like it. This specific case is about corporate tax, but they can act similarly if they suspect someone has "too much" cash sitting in a personal bank account. Especially when the legal system is such a mess, where you almost can't protect yourself from the whims of government agencies—I just don't want to be in a spot where I, as an individual, have to explain myself or prove anything to the IRS.

ruggedmaker2 said:Nobody is getting killed. Just wait and see.
It’s the same old song and dance restaurant owners sang when the IRS started cracking down on digital receipts—and hey, most of them are still standing.

Actually, this plays right into the hands of legitimate small business owners and freelancers. It’ll eventually weed out all that shady, unregistered competition that’s been undercutting everyone.

If you’ve got a paper trail, you’ve got nothing to worry about. If you’re running a legit LLC, a home business, doing freelance gigs, or just receiving money through channels that aren't even taxable to begin with, you're fine.

Half the time, journalists write these sensationalist pieces that make zero sense. Don't just swallow every half-truth they feed you.

At the end of the day, time will tell. There’s really no reason to spiral into a panic.
Unless, of course, your entire lifestyle depends on being a black-market smuggler or reselling stolen goods. Then yeah, you might have a problem.

Really? Oh, I've got an example for you. So, back in early January, I file my corporate tax return using the official forms, and the FBI—well, the IRS, basically—takes it all in perfectly fine. Then, fast forward to mid-summer while I'm out enjoying some vacation, and suddenly the tax folks realize they updated a form—just a minor tweak to the layout, nothing actually changed—and they send me this notice saying I have 3 days to get them a brand new version, all while waving these massive, draconian fines in my face if I'm even slightly late.

Now, just imagine if an agency like that decided they wanted me to prove where a specific amount of money in my account came from—money I earned totally legally, mind you. What am I supposed to do, show up with a mountain of paperwork? Contracts, pay stubs, bank statements... do I really need to spend my entire life keeping every single scrap of paper in perfect order just in case some random bureaucrat at the IRS decides to go on a fishing expedition regarding my assets? It's just wild!

wiredlynx28 said:Exactly, it’s a very broad term.
Take a look at a mandatory form, for instance. It asks which income bracket you fall into based on salary—up to $X amount, up to $Y amount, etc. Then it asks for your annual turnover in your checking account and so on. Based solely on those data points, if your business doesn't match the marked amounts, JPMorgan Chase sees that something is off. For example, if your total checking account turnover exceeds the declared limit and you have deposits that don't align with your salary, it’s obvious you have other income sources, and that gets reported to the IRS automatically. Then they come knocking, asking you to document the source of funds and all that jazz.
Basically, there's no cause for concern as long as you can prove where the money came from, regardless of the amount.
The bank is simply following orders from the Government.

I mean, personally? I’d much rather live in a country where I don't have to constantly prove I'm not some kind of criminal.

Quincy:

The bank is just following orders from the government.

When it comes to reporting stuff to the IRS, yeah, that's exactly right—it's really an issue with the state itself, not the bank.

wiredlynx28 said:The IRS has the authority to audit any transaction account belonging to an individual or a corporation.
As long as your money is earned legally, there’s really nothing to worry about.

I mean, what’s next? Maybe the government just wants full access to all our private emails to see if we're making side deals to dodge taxes—and their excuse will probably be that if you aren't doing anything illegal, why should you care if someone's snooping through your inbox? It's getting a bit wild, I guess...🙄

Larry Walker24 said:The bottom line is we’re nowhere near catching up to the rest of the West, yet we’re acting like we've already arrived.

It's not really about East vs. West anymore—it's more like there are countries that just do whatever they want, and then there are countries that basically just do whatever everyone else tells them to do.

Laura Chavez93 said:It makes me wonder who is truly losing their mind here 😵whether it is the architect of this policy, the branch managers pushing it, or the tellers who call my house demanding I visit in person just to answer these absurdities—refusing to handle it over the phone, and being too vague to even explain why I need to show up at all
when they could find everything they need with two simple clicks of a mouse 🙂

There is something else on my mind... is it standard practice for JPMorgan Chase to push service packages, CDs, mutual funds, and online banking tools
without me ever having requested them or expressed any interest whatsoever?

Oh, you can bet your life they do.

brightharbor13 said:I’m honestly surprised that nobody has jumped on this yet regarding JPMorgan Chase’s announcement that you won't be able to access their online banking services anymore if you're still running Windows XP!
The directive from JPMorgan Chase tells us to just go out and grab Windows 7 or 8 because XP isn't secure, but isn't that such a half-baked statement without any actual reasoning behind it? It really makes me wonder if this is all just a clever little way to help Microsoft boost their sales here in the US by forcing everyone onto newer versions of Windows.
What do you guys think?

Just switch banks! That’s what I did with my business account at JPMorgan Chase once they started making those annoying hardware tokens mandatory for everything.

Sarah Morris57 said:Honestly? In America, they won't be able to pull that off for at least another 200 years... lol...

Honestly, this whole article feels like just another classic piece of clickbait journalism—like, which banks are we even talking about? And under what specific circumstances would they suddenly stop taking cash? It’s all so vague! I mean, I don't know the exact situation over in Sweden, but usually, cash is legally considered a standard way to pay that folks have to accept (not that I'm getting into the nitty-gritty of legal loopholes or whatever)

goldenranger6 said:Haha, that's cute. You're thinking too optimistically. There’s definitely some fine print buried in those terms and conditions you signed that you didn't even bother to read.
I was applying for a loan at Chase recently, and the bank went through my entire transaction history without blinking. They even demanded extra documentation for specific purchases and grilled me about them... I was honestly caught off guard when my personal banker called me out of the blue to interrogate me about it... ended up in a full-blown argument.

The reality is we're beholden to these banks. If you want to take out a loan or fund some project, pretty much nobody can do it without them. If you go in there acting tough and refusing to answer their questions or provide what they need, you're obviously not going to get what you're asking for.

Wait, did I say I wasn't gonna answer the questions? I don't think so! I mean, if I feel like a question is totally irrelevant or just... weird, I can always just leave it blank, right?

George Barrett35 said:The FATCA questionnaire has absolutely nothing to do with the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing questionnaire.

Just so we’re all clear once and for all, the FinCEN questionnaire isn't strictly defined by statute—in fact, no specific form is—but rather by the Hub based on guidelines issued by FinCEN.

A few relevant sections from the law:

Customer Due Diligence Measures
Section 8.
(1) Unless otherwise provided by this Act, customer due diligence includes the following measures:
1. identifying the customer and verifying their identity based on documents, data, or information obtained from a reliable, dependable, and independent source,
2. identifying and verifying the identity of the customer's beneficial owner,
3. collecting data regarding the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship or transaction, along with other data required under this Act,,
...

Data Collection
Section 25.
(1) As part of customer due diligence, when establishing a business relationship under Section 9, subsection 1, point 1 of this Act, the obligated entity collects data pursuant to Section 16. subsection 1, points 1, 4, 5, 7. and 8 of this Act.
...

Obtaining Data by Obligated Entities
Section 16.
...
7. data concerning the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship, including information about the customer's business activities;;
...

Section 7.
...
(2) The obligated entity is required to conduct a risk analysis and, using that analysis, determine the risk rating for a specific group or type of customer, business relationship, product, or transaction relative to potential abuses related to money laundering or terrorist financing.

So, look, just basic identifiers (name, address, SSN, place of birth...) aren't nearly enough for due diligence or for categorizing a client into a risk group; you also need additional data regarding the intended purpose and nature of the business relationship.

That is exactly what this Questionnaire is for:
I don't know about other banks, but at Chase, the questionnaire covers exclusively this type of data.

Obviously, you can always refuse to give the bank the information they ask for, but they can refuse to open an account or unilaterally terminate the business relationship with the client (and they probably will).

Refusal of Business Relationships and Transactions
Section 13.
(1) An obligated entity that cannot carry out the measures set forth in Section 8, subsection 1, points 1, 2, and 3 of this Act, shall not establish a business relationship or execute a transaction, specifically...is forced to terminate an existing business relationship.

Oh, please. They aren't going to back down. I mean, they’re basically just using this whole law as an excuse to squeeze even more info out of their clients—kind of a loophole, if you ask me—while the actual regulations are just another annoying line item on their balance sheet.

briskjackal5 said:Well, if that's the case, why don't you just list out exactly which pieces of data the law is forcing them to ask for?

I mean, if it’s actually mandated by law, then there has to be a specific list of what they can request, right? You should definitely be able to see that somewhere. There’s gotta be an official document that says, "okay, they can ask for X, Y, and Z," and it can't just go on forever.

Because right now, it feels like one person is asking about this and someone else is worried about that, so it's all a bit confusing, I guess.

The law doesn't just say, "hey, feel free to ask whatever comes to mind." It's supposed to be precisely defined.
And if you're going to keep insisting, "we have to, because the law says so," then maybe just tell us exactly what the law says? That way we'll actually know if the law is the issue here or not, based on what's actually written down.

-briskjackal5

Because she honestly doesn't have a clue—or maybe she just doesn't want to admit that it's super obvious banks grab way more info than they're legally supposed to. I mean, I actually asked her about this exact thing once and she just totally dodged the question.

wiredlynx28 said:By becoming clients, you're essentially agreeing to all the general terms and conditions, which are subject to change.
If you find yourself at odds with any updated agreements, you have the right to terminate your relationship before those changes actually take effect.
Every bank is simply following the mandates set by federal law—there's always a legal reason behind their requirements.
If a staff member can't give you a straight answer to a specific question, don't hesitate to escalate it. Ask for the branch manager, the director, or even reach out to the legal department to ensure they address your concerns and clear up any confusion.

Alright then, if that's how it works, can you actually point me toward the specific legal statutes that force banks to demand exactly what everyone else on this forum was complaining about earlier?

Brian Moore12 said:I haven't found a single article stating anyone is forced to hand over the mountain of data these banking types demand. You only have to provide the basics for transactions exceeding $35, or if there's actual suspicion regarding money laundering. 🤷

Maybe you just haven't seen the specific guidelines from Article 83 that banks are supposed to be following...? I mean, if you're curious, you can always go read the actual law yourself—but hey, if you'd rather just believe that banks are the villains behind everything, that's totally fine by me too!

Brian Moore12 said:Which law are we talking about?

It’s the Anti-Money Laundering Act plus all those extra federal regulations

I've been lurking in this thread for a bit, and man, I see everyone venting about how banks are just the worst—this one is greedy, that one is shady, blah blah blah—but honestly? The real kicker is that US Congress passed a law that basically forces their hands. Like, they *have* to follow these rules now. I mean, I highly doubt banks actually have any real incentive to go hunting for "terrorists" among their everyday customers. It's just more paperwork for them, I guess.