outbakes9510

@outbakes9510@piefed.social

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Buying a $250 Residency Card From a Tropical Island Let Me Bypass U.S. Crypto Laws⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I don't know who would benefit from interacting with this.

  Going from a Kraken fee of 0.16% to a Binance fee of 0.075% after discounts (while assuming that depositing money one has in a bank account will still work well and that there is no risk from legal liability or of an account being closed) would let one recoup a $250 fee after trading a value of at least $294,117 ($250/((0.16-0.075)/100)). If one is Canadian and would otherwise have to suffer a 0.5% fee, one could recoup a USD 250 fee after trading a value of at least USD 58,823.

  Someone that has about $300,000 in a bank account that wanted to use all of it to buy cryptocurrency would probably be able to afford to become a citizen of Saint Kitts and Nevis or Saint Lucia or even Malta, so Palau is probably not actually targeting rich people.

  Someone that is making about $300,000 worth of trades but isn't rich is someone who trades a small value many times each year, and "the vast majority of day traders lose money". This suggests that, for most people, this will be the final meaningful purchase they make before their net worth declines rapidly. However, anyone that does end up profiting might be inclined to spend more money in Palau (whereas people who go broke won't even be able to afford to stay in Palau and so probably won't be able to cause problems in Palau), so Palau might end up profiting from people who lose money and people who gain money.

  I happen to have been asked about this many months ago, since people were visiting cryptocurrency meetup events to in order to advertise this "residency card".

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Buying a $250 Residency Card From a Tropical Island Let Me Bypass U.S. Crypto Laws⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  The "substantial presence test" is more complicated than you might have thought: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/substantial-presence-test

  If you spent a full 210 days (30 days from a visa on arrival followed by 2 consecutive 90-day extensions) each year in Palau, but spent the remainder of every year in the USA, you would be physically present in the United States (U.S.) on at least "183 days during the 3-year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before that". Specifically, the "count" would be 232.5 (instead of 465 since days in earlier years are counted as 1/3 or 1/6), which is at least 183.

  It seems the easiest way to avoid being considered a United States resident for tax purposes from meeting the substantial presence test is to not be physically present in the United States (U.S.) on at least 31 days during the current year. If you wanted to do that, there are many places where most United States citizens are already allowed to stay for "365 days" or "1 year" or "Unlimited", notably including Palau, as well as Marshall Islands and Albania and other countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_United_States_citizens