You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Benefits of having a Green Card !!!
- Thread starter techie8
- Start date
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
Read what you posted!
The first answer says that you will not get a stimulus payment for this child, which I have also stated. It does not preclude getting the extra $300 when filing your 2008 return.
The second refers to children adopted by US citizens and who have an ATIN and are by definition eligible for an SSN. They will never receive an ITIN, so it has absolutely zero applicability to the current situation.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Read what you posted!
The first answer says that you will not get a stimulus payment for this child, which I have also stated. It does not preclude getting the extra $300 when filing your 2008 return.
The second refers to children adopted by US citizens and who have an ATIN and are by definition eligible for an SSN. They will never receive an ITIN, so it has absolutely zero applicability to the current situation.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Parents will get 300$ for child only if child get SSN, does not matter adopted or not.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
Parents will get 300$ for child only if child get SSN, does not matter adopted or not.
Repeating yourself won't make you right. If the child has no SSN, you do not get the extra $300. You will get the $300 when you file in 2009, if the child has at least an ITIN.
Just one more time
Just read underlined, I believe even childs citizens will not get Stimulus unless they get SSN.
Repeating yourself won't make you right. If the child has no SSN, you do not get the extra $300. You will get the $300 when you file in 2009, if the child has at least an ITIN.
Q. I adopted a child this year and my child has an ATIN (Adoption Taxpayer Identification Number). Will I receive the $300 additional child payment?
A. An ATIN is issued by the IRS as a temporary taxpayer identification number for the child. Adoptive parents who do not yet have a Social Security number for their child generally will not get the stimulus payment. However, if they receive a Social Security number for the child before the end of 2008, they can claim the additional child payment on their 2008 tax return.
Just read underlined, I believe even childs citizens will not get Stimulus unless they get SSN.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
Just read underlined, I believe even childs citizens will not get Stimulus unless they get SSN.
I've read the underlined. And it says absolutely nothing about situations where the child has an ITIN.
I've read the underlined. And it says absolutely nothing about situations where the child has an ITIN.
This is covered by this
Q. If I have a valid Social Security number and my child has an ITIN, do I get extra money for the child?
A. Generally speaking, no, you cannot get the extra credit for your children unless everyone listed on the return has a valid Social Security number. This includes you and your qualifying children. If you file a joint return, your spouse must generally have a valid SSN as well. The only exception is when at least one of the spouses is a member of the Armed Forces. [Updated 7/2/2008]
Read underlined , it says about childs without SSN, having ITIN only.
BTW: Where did you get info about kids, with ITIN only, are getting Stimulus next year ?
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
Read underlined , it says about childs without SSN, having ITIN only.
Yes. It says they're not getting the money this year. We already know that.
BTW: Where did you get info about kids, with ITIN only, are getting Stimulus next year ?
Because the stimulus is actually a reduction in tax brackets and an increase in the child tax credit. It's a lowering of your tax liability, and then you are getting an "advance" on this savings by getting the check this year instead of waiting until April 2009 when it would ordinarily come.
Because it's a decrease in tax liability, every US taxpayer is eligible for it. IRS, by law and treaty, cannot discriminate in this area. If you are eligible to claim the child as a dependent (because it has an ITIN) on your tax return, you are eligible for the extra $300. You may not meet the criteria to receive it in advance, but the criteria for that are different than the criteria required to get it at all. That's what I'm trying to say here.
Were you around for the 2001 stimulus?
Yes. It says they're not getting the money this year. We already know that.
Because the stimulus is actually a reduction in tax brackets and an increase in the child tax credit. It's a lowering of your tax liability, and then you are getting an "advance" on this savings by getting the check this year instead of waiting until April 2009 when it would ordinarily come.
Because it's a decrease in tax liability, every US taxpayer is eligible for it. IRS, by law and treaty, cannot discriminate in this area. If you are eligible to claim the child as a dependent (because it has an ITIN) on your tax return, you are eligible for the extra $300. You may not meet the criteria to receive it in advance, but the criteria for that are different than the criteria required to get it at all. That's what I'm trying to say here.
Were you around for the 2001 stimulus?
Why do you think they will work in accordance with this logic, and they do not have rights .... ?
Their official FAQ proves that No SSN -> No Stimulus
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=181995,00.html
Just re-read one more time two last questions and answers.
Yes, I was here around 2001 and got stimulus for my family, although only I had SSN that time.
Do not you know that originally regarding 2001 Stimulus they wanted to implement this practice - NO SSN -> NO Stimulus ?
Then they decided to pay each taxpayer.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
Their official FAQ proves that No SSN -> No Stimulus
WE KNOW THAT.
Nothing says that you will not get the payment when filing the 2008 return; in fact, the last answer says so - once the child can be claimed as a dependent, the $300 will be added to the refund. It mentions SSNs specifically since the adopted children of US citizens are not eligible for ITINs.
So stop repeating yourself. You're telling us what we already know - children with ITINs won't get the $300 in 2008.
They will get it in 2009, and nothing you have posted contradicts this. How many times do I need to keep repeating myself??
WE KNOW THAT.
Nothing says that you will not get the payment when filing the 2008 return; in fact, the last answer says so - once the child can be claimed as a dependent, the $300 will be added to the refund. It mentions SSNs specifically since the adopted children of US citizens are not eligible for ITINs.
So stop repeating yourself. You're telling us what we already know - children with ITINs won't get the $300 in 2008.
They will get it in 2009, and nothing you have posted contradicts this. How many times do I need to keep repeating myself??
It is very emotional post, but nothing besides of it.
Do you have any supporting documents to prove your statement.
... children with ITINs won't get the $300 in 2008.
They will get it in 2009, and nothing you have posted contradicts this
There is no contradictions but there is no an official provement of your logic.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
Do you have any supporting documents to prove your statement.
From the document you provided!
Q. I don’t qualify for a stimulus payment based on my 2007 return. But my tax situation will be different in 2008. Will I qualify for any special benefit?
A. Possibly. The 2008 tax instructions will include a worksheet to help those who did not qualify for a payment or those who received a reduced amount determine if they can obtain a benefit when they file their 2008 tax returns next year.
From the document you provided!
Q. I don’t qualify for a stimulus payment based on my 2007 return. But my tax situation will be different in 2008. Will I qualify for any special benefit?
A. Possibly. The 2008 tax instructions will include a worksheet to help those who did not qualify for a payment or those who received a reduced amount determine if they can obtain a benefit when they file their 2008 tax returns next year.
How is this related with ITIN kids ?
Even what you quoted proves that something needs to be changed either for taxpayer or dependant in 2008 (tax situation -> getting SSN for example)
If nothing is changed .... No payment ... Sorry
Of course they may change their practice like they did in 2001. but now no SSN - no stimulus
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
I've read HR5410 as passed. It appears that I owe you an apology. Based on the text of the law, it looks like they are specifically disallowing the credit against tax liability for individuals with an ITIN.
Sorry. You appear to be right.
Now, in my specific case were my wife or children to have an ITIN, the US/Canada tax treaty specifically has a non-discrimination clause, so I could probably fight IRS on this one - they're not allowed to treat me differently from any other US tax resident. Whether that would be worth fighting over $300 is another question.
For those interested, here is the actual text of the law:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:5:./temp/~c110roOoRA:e1660:
Sorry. You appear to be right.
Now, in my specific case were my wife or children to have an ITIN, the US/Canada tax treaty specifically has a non-discrimination clause, so I could probably fight IRS on this one - they're not allowed to treat me differently from any other US tax resident. Whether that would be worth fighting over $300 is another question.
For those interested, here is the actual text of the law:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:5:./temp/~c110roOoRA:e1660:
This year's rebate legislation did not alter the tax tables. It merely directed the IRS to issue an one-time credit to eligible taxpayers. The eligibility rules then expressly exclude people without social security numbers. So your suggestion that a taxpayer not currently eligible can nevertheless benefit from lower tax liabilities when they file their 2008 returns is not correct.
This tax rebate and the 2001 rebate are different.
This tax rebate and the 2001 rebate are different.
Last edited by a moderator:
Your treaty argument cannot work. Heard of the last-in-time legal rule? A later federal law will trump an earlier international treaty in the event that they are inconsistent with each other. Congress can choose to treat you differently from citizen taxpayers in spite of the treaty. You have to fight Congress (not the IRS) and they will win. Sorry.
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
Your treaty argument cannot work. Heard of the last-in-time legal rule? A later federal law will trump an earlier international treaty in the event that they are inconsistent with each other.
My understanding is that treaties are superior, not equal, to US law; they are subject only to the Constitution. HR5410 seems to violate numerous tax treaties, and it'll be interesting to see what happens in this area.
My understanding is that treaties are superior, not equal, to US law; they are subject only to the Constitution.
Sorry but that understanding is simply incorrect. Treaties are superior to pre-existing federal laws but are inferior to later federal laws. This has been a settled rule since the earliest days of the American Republic.
Treaties are superior to state laws regardless of timing.
Last edited by a moderator:
The United States Supreme Court has clearly explained the relationship between federal laws and treaties:
[A]lthough treaties are recognized by our Constitution as the supreme law of the land, that status is no less true of provisions of the Constitution itself, to which rules of procedural default apply. We have held “that an Act of Congress ... is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null.” Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18, 77 S.Ct. 1222, 1231, 1 L.Ed.2d 1148 (1957) (plurality opinion); see also Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194, 8 S.Ct. 456, 458, 124 U.S. 190 (1888) (holding that if a treaty and a federal statute conflict, “the one last in date will control the other”).
Breard v. Green, 523 U.S. 371, 376 (1998) (emphasis added by me)
[A]lthough treaties are recognized by our Constitution as the supreme law of the land, that status is no less true of provisions of the Constitution itself, to which rules of procedural default apply. We have held “that an Act of Congress ... is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null.” Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18, 77 S.Ct. 1222, 1231, 1 L.Ed.2d 1148 (1957) (plurality opinion); see also Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194, 8 S.Ct. 456, 458, 124 U.S. 190 (1888) (holding that if a treaty and a federal statute conflict, “the one last in date will control the other”).
Breard v. Green, 523 U.S. 371, 376 (1998) (emphasis added by me)
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
Interesting - it'll be neat to see how this plays out. The ramifications are interesting, since they give other countries free rein to discriminate against US citizens abroad.