Illegal Advice on AskMe

July 5, 2006 9:20 AM

Seems to me that this question on AskMe is asking for advice on how to break the law, specifically how to break immigration law restricting the scope of the poster's employment. In order to get around the immigration laws, the income couldn't be reported to IRS, so he's asking how to break tax laws too.

I don't really care, but it seems to me that if "How can I break this law," violates the askme guidelines, then this post needs to be yanked.
posted by ikkyu2 to Etiquette/Policy at 9:20 AM (63 comments total)

Self-employment is legal for foreign students. The poster specifically says he doesn't want a regular job. Where do you get the idea that he wants to break the law?
posted by Gyan at 9:25 AM on July 5, 2006

Yeah I was reading this the way Gyan was.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:29 AM on July 5, 2006

He says his immigration status doesn't allow him to work off campus. He almost certainly holds a J-1 visa, as this is the way this is commonly explained.

The work restrictions, however, don't mean that the guy must be physically present on campus to do the work; rather, he's to do the work for which the visa was issued, not other work. All work he does has to be approved by an officer of the visa-granting agency.

Students in J status may work in the U.S. under two conditions: academic training related to the course of study, and student employment related to academic funding, on-campus work or economic necessity.

Essentially he's asking how to work under the table. That's against the law.
posted by ikkyu2 at 9:30 AM on July 5, 2006

He asked how he could make money, not necessarily how he could earn taxable income. And while he said that he doesn't have a 401K, neither do I, because I'm not an American. As such, we cannot guess his country of residence nor whether any activity he takes or which we might suggest would be illegal.

Bad callout, no moderation necessary.
posted by solid-one-love at 9:31 AM on July 5, 2006

ikkyu2: He says his immigration status doesn't allow him to work off campus. He almost certainly holds a J-1 visa, as this is the way this is commonly explained.

You're jumping the gun. The restriction applies to F-1 visa, as well. By far, the more common visa for foreign students. I repeat, self-employment is not illegal for F-1 students. One of my friends started his own company as an undergrad on F-1. He's now doing pretty well, and has won a few awards at enterpreneurial competitions.
posted by Gyan at 9:36 AM on July 5, 2006

Either he's American, or he's in America. It's not called 401k elsewhere.
posted by raedyn at 9:36 AM on July 5, 2006

Either he's American, or he's in America. It's not called 401k elsewhere.

So we are thus in agreement that we cannot guess his country of residence.
posted by solid-one-love at 9:40 AM on July 5, 2006

Gyan, while I loathe to agree with ikkyu2 in this particular situation because I don't think the OP has done anything egregiously wrong, the OP has admitted to being unable to work off-campus, which suggests that any gained employment that isn't through the university is illegal.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:46 AM on July 5, 2006

Can he gamble or play the stock market? That seems legal means that aren't considered regular.
posted by geoff. at 9:46 AM on July 5, 2006

I'm pretty sure that he's asking how he can work under the table.
posted by k8t at 9:56 AM on July 5, 2006

I don't really care

You clearly do.
posted by smackfu at 9:58 AM on July 5, 2006

I think that as long as it is not obvious that the asker is seeking to break the law, the question should stand. Sounds like there might be enough of an uncertainty in this case to let it slide. Now if you want to invest time and energy to prove reasonably that it is a law breaking question.... you have more time/energy than I.
posted by edgeways at 10:26 AM on July 5, 2006

I take the remark about self-employment back. I just talked with a friend, and he says that there were some technicalities which allowed my other friend to start his company.

Hopefully, the AskMe poster can be diverted here to clarify his intent.
posted by Gyan at 10:36 AM on July 5, 2006

Hopefully, the AskMe poster can be diverted here to clarify his intent.

Can't we just presume innocence and move on with our lives?
posted by scottreynen at 10:42 AM on July 5, 2006

Yeah, but it's a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark.
posted by Plutor at 10:43 AM on July 5, 2006

Gyan, your own link shows that the F-1 doesn't prevent students from working off-campus, they just need authorization. Taking the poster at face-value, it sounds like he's got a J-1, as ikkyu2 says.

"He asked how he could make money, not necessarily how he could earn taxable income."

Whatever he's thinking of doing, it's taxable income. "Making money" == "taxable income".
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:44 AM on July 5, 2006

Ethereal Bligh : "Gyan, your own link shows that the F-1 doesn't prevent students from working off-campus, they just need authorization."

The F-1 student is allowed to work off-campus in case of "economic necessity". The same's true of J-1. The difference is that F-1s can work part-time on-campus without special permission, whereas the J-1 can't.
posted by Gyan at 10:51 AM on July 5, 2006

Whatever he's thinking of doing, it's taxable income. "Making money" == "taxable income".

Incorrect. I can think of dozens of ways to make money legally that are not taxable income. Gambling in Canada, for example.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:18 AM on July 5, 2006

I think that as long as it is not obvious that the asker is seeking to break the law, the question should stand.

Amen, and I'm not sure why people are so eager to make whatever presumptions will allow them to more effectively censor AskMe (or urge censorship thereof). Let people ask their damn questions, and let Matt be the judge of whether they're suitable, OK?
posted by languagehat at 11:20 AM on July 5, 2006

I can think of dozens of ways to make money legally that are not taxable income. Gambling in Canada, for example.

But if you're a U.S. citizen, your income is taxable anywhere in the world. Including your gambling winnings on Form 1040 Line 21.
posted by grouse at 11:26 AM on July 5, 2006

and let Matt be the judge of whether they're suitable, OK?

Uh, no. What has always made MeFi intelligent was our ability to police ourselves, not let Matt play censor and babysitter. As the site gets larger, sure, his role becomes more pronounced, but etiquette and informal rules have always been made and broken here in MeTa and in the Blue. And hopefully it remains that way.

Exactly what is supposed to happen has happened. A member brings up a possible etiquette issue; we weigh the issues and options; and if moderation is necessary, Matt can take the advice here or go his own way. But let's not voluntarily censor our opinions in favor of additional one-sided moderation.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:30 AM on July 5, 2006

But if you're a U.S. citizen

A supposition which, again, we have not yet determined to be true.

We don't know where the guy's from. We don't know where he's going to school. We cannot tell if he's an American or is being schooled in the US, despite his mention of a 401K. We don't know if he's intending to break the law. We don't know the full details of his visa restrictions.

This is, again, a bad callout and not in need of moderation.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:31 AM on July 5, 2006

SeizeTheDay, I'm not saying we shouldn't ever discuss whether things are violations of the MeFi rules. That would be silly. I'm saying I don't see the point in looking for ways in which an AskMe poster could be violating laws and creating a MeTa post about it. What's the point? If you really think Matt should be worried about it, send him an e-mail.
posted by languagehat at 11:43 AM on July 5, 2006

I was kinda weirded out when you said that, given how many etiquette discussions you've been involved with. Thanks for clearing that up.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:45 AM on July 5, 2006

member brings up a possible etiquette issue...

Is this really an etiquette issue? It looks to me like a legal issue, questioning whether or not Matt might be legally liable for providing a forumn in which people might discuss illegal activities. Legal liability is a concern only relevant to Matt and his LLC, not the entire community.
posted by scottreynen at 11:54 AM on July 5, 2006

i still say texas hold 'em is the answer.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 11:55 AM on July 5, 2006

"Gambling in Canada, for example."

Recreational gambling is not taxed in Canada. Professional gambling is. That is to say, if it's your primary income, then you're a professional and you owe taxes on it.

In the US, pretty much all income is taxable. Certainly it's the case that income upon which you can actually support yourself is taxable, whatever the source. Note that this is, as far as I know, pretty much true in Canada, as well.

The idea that there's a single or combination of ways in which you can make primary-income sums of money yet owe no taxes on it is just wrong.

"The F-1 student is allowed to work off-campus in case of 'economic necessity'. The same's true of J-1."

I don't see that in either of the links. The J-1 link talks about "economic necessity". The F-1 link mentions only that "authorization" is required for off-campus work.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:05 PM on July 5, 2006

Quoting myself,

"The idea that there's a single or combination of ways in which you can make primary-income sums of money yet owe no taxes on it is just wrong."

...I should qualify: excepting such special cases as being a minister or the other few similar kinds of things.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:15 PM on July 5, 2006

If you had enough start-up capital, muni bonds might qualify :)
posted by small_ruminant at 12:23 PM on July 5, 2006

Ethereal Bligh : "The F-1 link mentions only that 'authorization' is required for off-campus work."

See here.
posted by Gyan at 12:34 PM on July 5, 2006

Ah. You're right.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:46 PM on July 5, 2006

...I should qualify: excepting such special cases as being a minister or the other few similar kinds of things.

So, there's a perfectly good answer to the AskMe question - start a religion! It's worked well for a number of people. (Elron comes to mind.)
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:09 PM on July 5, 2006

Recreational gambling is not taxed in Canada. Professional gambling is

Respectfully, you might want to assuage your ignorance before you start writing. Gaming income of any kind: lotteries, contests, gambling, or otherwise, is non-taxable in Canada. There is no exception for "professional" gambling.

Note that this is, as far as I know, pretty much true in Canada, as well.

And you don't know.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:19 PM on July 5, 2006

Respectfully, you might want to assuage your ignorance before you start writing.

Hmmm. Anyway, here, of course, we're talking about a resident alien in the US. Under the Canada-U.S. Income Tax Convention, Canadian nationals in the US are subject to tax on certain gambling winnings, and can claim certain gambling losses as deductions. More here, here, and here.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:35 PM on July 5, 2006

Monju, that doesn't refute what I wrote at all; there are issues in that case that go far beyond the non-taxability of gaming income. Show me tax law, not case law.

Seriously, grabbing the first Google link for "income tax" "gaming" "Canada" isn't going to give you any useful answers.

Anyhow, it turns out that I'm half-right, but still more right than EB -- winnings in a casino are non-taxable regardless of whether or not you're a professional. There is a recent CCRA bulletin advising that professional gaming proceeds are taxable, but there's no legal place to gamble in Canada outside a casino, where income is not taxable.

But since we're talking about a student looking to make some money ont he side, this all becomes moot, since he would not be doing it to earn a living.

Anyway, here, of course, we're talking about a resident alien in the US

No, we're talking about a person of indeterminate residency and nationality.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:50 PM on July 5, 2006

(And, just for the record, being a member of the military, reserve or otherwise, is an option often available to people on visas, and this income is often non-taxable. Since, again, we don't know where the OP lives or is from, this might be an option.

I could list ways of earning non-taxable income all day, but seeing as how the AskMe question isn't being moderated, this would be pointless.)
posted by solid-one-love at 1:52 PM on July 5, 2006

Monju, that doesn't refute what I wrote at all; there are issues in that case that go far beyond the non-taxability of gaming income. Show me tax law, not case law.

Case law is tax law, where it interprets the Tax Code. And what that case tells you is that where someone is "engaged in the business of gambling," their gambling income is subject to taxation. Moreover, from IT-334R2:

Profits derived from bookmaking or from the operation of any gambling establishment (carried on legally or otherwise) constitute income from a business. In addition, an individual may be subject to tax on income derived from gambling itself, if the gambling activities constitute carrying on the business of gambling; see the decision of MNR v. Morden, (1961) CTC 484, 61 DTC 1266 (Ex. Ct.). The issue of whether or not an individual's activities are such that he or she can be considered to be carrying on a gambling business is a question of fact that can be determined only by an examination of all of the circumstances and the taxpayer's entire course of conduct. Although no one factor may be conclusive, the following criteria should be considered in making the determination:

(a) the degree of organization that is present in the pursuit of this activity by the taxpayer,

(b) the existence of special knowledge or inside information that enables the taxpayer to reduce the element of chance,

(c) the taxpayer's intention to gamble for pleasure as compared with any intention to gamble for profit as a means of gaining a livelihood, and

(d) the extent of the taxpayer's gambling activities, including the number and frequency of bets.

It is clear from various decisions of the courts that earnings from illegal operations or illicit businesses, such as illegal gambling and fraudulent business schemes, are not exempt from tax. (See for example, the decisions in The Queen v. Poynton, (1972) CTC 411, 72 DTC 6329 (Ont. C.A.) and MNR v. Eldridge, (1964) CTC 545, 64 DTC 5338 (Ex. Ct.).)

There is a recent CCRA bulletin advising that professional gaming proceeds are taxable, but there's no legal place to gamble in Canada outside a casino, where income is not taxable.

Which bulletin is that?

No, we're talking about a person of indeterminate residency and nationality.

You're right about that. I hadn't read the AskMe question and I assumed too much based on this discussion of Canadian tax law.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:14 PM on July 5, 2006

Case law is tax law, where it interprets the Tax Code.

In which province did you pass the bar?

Which bulletin is that?

The one you linked to. I think I wasn't clear: the bulletin says that pro gaming proceeds are taxable. The bit about casinos is a separate issue, not part of the bulletin. But every provincially-licensed casino and regulatory org in the country (for example -- click on 'prizes' and then #7) advises that casino income is not taxable. I can't imagine how they could do so were it not true.

You're right about that. I hadn't read the AskMe question and I assumed too much based on this discussion of Canadian tax law.

Yeah. I tried to give an example of non-taxable income that could be legally earned and ended up having to defend it, when I should have just said "whatever", and given another example.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:27 PM on July 5, 2006

In which province did you pass the bar?

Does it matter? How does that refute my point?

The bit about casinos is a separate issue, not part of the bulletin. But every provincially-licensed casino and regulatory org in the country (for example -- click on 'prizes' and then #7) advises that casino income is not taxable.

That doesn't make it true. I can't find anything in the Tax Code, the interpretive guidance, or the case law that exempts casinos from the generally applicable principles dividing casual from professional gambling. Indeed, IT-334R2 and case law from the Tax Court suggests the opposite. I think the confusion comes from the conflation of two separate questions: (1) whether gambling income is taxed, and (2) whether casino winnings are taxed at the time you collect from the casino. The answer to (2) is no, the answer to (1) is maybe.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:57 PM on July 5, 2006

Geez.

No matter if anyone here is friggin' lawyer or not, the Canadian laws re: gambling winnings being taxable or not is completely besides the point of both the AskMe (since we know neither the residency nor the citizenship of the Asker) and this MeTa.

Holy cow, guys. Lay off the pissing match please.
posted by raedyn at 3:20 PM on July 5, 2006

Anecdotally, there was a Canadian guy named David Ross on the 2plus2 poker forums who wrote a diary for a year about gambling as his sole means of support, using online poker sites. He spoke about paying tax on his winnings.

I can't find the post he mentioned this in, but he seems to have started a second diary last year.
posted by Big Fat Tycoon at 3:25 PM on July 5, 2006

the Canadian laws re: gambling winnings being taxable or not is completely besides the point of both the AskMe (since we know neither the residency nor the citizenship of the Asker) and this MeTa.


If somone is advising him to travel to Canada and gamble there, it's perfectly relevant, isn't it? Surely if he leaves the US, makes some money, and comes back, that's not taxable income?
posted by AmbroseChapel at 3:34 PM on July 5, 2006

Almost every request for deletion of an AskMe question based on legal issues has been bullshit handwringing.

Just thought I'd mention that.
posted by mediareport at 3:44 PM on July 5, 2006

Except for the ones in which we've established that using AskMe for advice on breaking the law is against the guidelines.
posted by occhiblu at 3:50 PM on July 5, 2006

Yeah, and Matt's good at catching those. My point is that ikkyu2 a) said he doesn't really care, b) assumed the worst and 3) posted a public request that the thread be deleted.

Sorry, that's bullshit.
posted by mediareport at 3:54 PM on July 5, 2006

The Canadian tax law they're on about is income tax in Canada.

Under Canada's tax system, your liability for income tax in Canada is based on your status as a resident or non-resident of Canada. Residency must be established before your tax liability to Canada can be determined. Source

If the poster is not a Canadian resident, Canadian income tax law doesn't matter.

AmbroseChapel, you're assuming the poster is in the US. We don't know this, of course. But if you're right, Canadian income tax law is not relevant, and US tax law might be.
posted by raedyn at 3:54 PM on July 5, 2006

The owls are not what they seem.
posted by flabdablet at 4:59 PM on July 5, 2006

I don't really care, but this seems to be on the level as say, asking how to illegally download copyrighted works.
posted by null terminated at 7:29 PM on July 5, 2006

Full disclosure: I don't care if the original poster cheats the IRS or breaks immigration laws.

I think the AskMe policy of "don't ask how to break the law" is foolish for a number of reasons, one of which is that it requires a moderator who's expert in world and regional laws. Such a moderator we don't have.

But I do care that the rules of the community make sense and are consistently enforced. Since the rule's in place, enforce it.
posted by ikkyu2 at 8:08 PM on July 5, 2006

hi everyone,

i just had a chance to check responses to my question -- i certainly didn't mean to start all this...

for the record,
- i go to school in america
- i am not a US citizen
- i have an F1 visa
- there are certain kinds of employment allowable under this visa, also my visa status will change in the near future
- i have no intention of breaking the law, nor am i asking for advice on how to break the law

thanks a lot for the useful advice, including this discussion of employment law, which would perhaps have been more to the point if i had provided this info in my original post.

p.s. i do make a bit of money on hold-em... and i don't pay tax on it. am i a criminal?
posted by tabulem at 8:13 PM on July 5, 2006

OK, I retract. Thanks for clearing things up, tabulem.
posted by ikkyu2 at 8:15 PM on July 5, 2006

"Anyhow, it turns out that I'm half-right, but still more right than EB..."

No, it turns out that you're a twit who makes absolute assertions on the basis of reasoning and knowledge like "I can't imagine how they could do so were it not true."

I'm hoping that this might be instructive for you, because you have a habit of this sort of thing. Keeping in mind your claim to being "half-right" and "more right" than me, let's compare what I asserted:

"Recreational gambling is not taxed in Canada. Professional gambling is."

...which has been proven to be absolutely and completely true. We only need a single instance of gambling found to be taxable because it was professional for my statement to be true.

In contrast, you asserted

"Respectfully, you might want to assuage your ignorance before you start writing. Gaming income of any kind: lotteries, contests, gambling, or otherwise, is non-taxable in Canada. There is no exception for 'professional' gambling.

...which was a) really fucking rude, and b) completely wrong. There is an exception for "professional" gambling.

So your evaluation of being "half-right" and "more right" doesn't fare that well, does it?

I'm (at least recently) no less guilty than you are of indulging myself in an obnoxious smack-down of someone I think has been egregiously wrong. But if you're going to be that obnoxious, at least have the decency to actually be right. And if you discover you're not, then have the cojones to admit you're wrong instead of posturing and bullshitting.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:45 PM on July 5, 2006

OK, I retract.

Aaaaaaand...yet *another* MeTa request for deletion of an AskMe question based on legal issues turns out to be unfair bullshit handwringing. There's a lesson in here somewhere.

Please stop calling for the deletion of AskMe threads on your *suspicion* that the poster might be asking for help in breaking the law. Email Matt a heads-up instead, and stop spreading the "let's complain about AskMe questions that make us momentarily uncomfortable" meme.

Thank you and good night.
posted by mediareport at 9:20 PM on July 5, 2006

Your rudeness is the only thing in this thread that's made me uncomfortable, mediareport.

It's the kind of discomfort you feel when you wonder, "Wow, does that guy really know what an ass he's made of himself?"
posted by ikkyu2 at 9:38 PM on July 5, 2006

I'm sorry, ikkyu2; the issue of shutting down AskMe questions folks disagree with really bugs me, and you hit a button with this one.

It's the kind of discomfort you feel when you wonder, "Wow, does that guy really know what an ass he's made of himself?"

*sits on hands, grits teeth*
posted by mediareport at 10:23 PM on July 5, 2006

Mediareport: I guess I wasn't clear enough: I agree with you on that. Not only does removing questions bug me, but removing questions inconsistently or arbitrarily bugs me.
posted by ikkyu2 at 12:25 AM on July 6, 2006

Bugs you so much that you just had to post an unnecessary MeTa question whose premise you don't even believe in?

Hint for future: if you find yourself typing "I don't really care," it might be a good idea to rethink the whole idea of posting.
posted by languagehat at 5:31 AM on July 6, 2006

I'm not sure if this is going to be any good at the end of this thread here, but I just wanted to talk about the "please don't ask about how to do things that are illegal" guideline. It's there so that AskMe doesn't become 1) a liability for mathowie, 2) an on-going constant trainwreck, and 3) a goto place for everyone trying to get their extralegal freak on, specifically warez, drug info, bittorent, crime, etc. (see point #1)

The point is not to ferret out every question that could be used to circumvent some existing law someplace -- I have neither the time nor the inclination to go into the level of depth you guys went into here, for example -- but to make sure that generally people keep things above board. The site is international and there is a certain amount of leniency given for differing legal understandings and cultural expectations. Often the back and forth involved in answering an AskMe question will pick apart some of these details. We presume good faith and err on the side of inclusion, as in this case. I don't even think the guidelines for AskMe have made it all the way to the FAQ yet, I'll try to add something to this effect.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:05 AM on July 6, 2006

Speaking of the FAQ, the mods should add a link to it, in the Blue.
posted by Gyan at 10:24 AM on July 6, 2006

I love how a discussion about the legality of someone in the US on a student visa making money off campus has devolved into an argument about whether or not professional gamblers in Canada have to pay taxes.
posted by delmoi at 11:04 AM on July 6, 2006

p.s. i do make a bit of money on hold-em... and i don't pay tax on it. am i a criminal?

Well, 'criminal' is a bit strong, but you should include your total winnings from the year as income when you do your taxes, just to be safe.
posted by delmoi at 11:07 AM on July 6, 2006

So can F1 students work off campus 40 hours a week during the summer and vacations without a problem? Do they have to get special permission?
posted by k8t at 11:55 AM on July 6, 2006

k8t, F1 students can work 20 hours on-campus during school; 40 hours on-campus during breaks. All off-campus employment requires permission.
posted by Gyan at 12:18 PM on July 6, 2006