D Tel: Travellers with over £6,700 must tell taxman

On Jun 16, 9:33 pm, (Randy Hudson) wrote:

TF 4790 (TF stands for Treasury form). It's particularly annoying when
leaving the US before the US Customs personnel open their office; I've slid
the form under their office door on several such occasions.

It also must be filed when entering the country with cash, and the trigger
amount ($10,000 US) is a bit lower than the trigger amount for departing the
UK (Euro 10,000); Brits who carefully stay under their own limit might still
need to file according to US law when they get here.

The US Supreme Court has weighed in, and tempered somewhat the
penalties:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/524/321/case.html

Funds transferred through the banking system will be reported
automatically.

One of the facts of anti-terror and anti-money laundering legislation
and regulation is that the information is being used actively to
combat tax evasion. Also, banks in all the OECD countries are now
subject to Know Your Customer rules and to insisting on (in principle)
justification for remittances that are out of character. I have found
it necessary to send foreign banks I deal with copies of transaction
reports, land purchase contracts, etc. whenever I engage in a cross-
border investment or liquidate one.

Normally when you file a customs form (TF 4790
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/f4790--2002.pdf
or the Canadian FINTRAC equivalent
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/poc/launder_e.htm
you can be given a receipt which may be used as a "comfort document"
for the bank or recipient when depositing the money.

Most lawyers and car dealers, etc. will now simpy refuse to accept
cash over the local money laundering limit. Lawyers' clients security
accounts and casino cashiers are, or were in the past, among the best
money laundering venues. (For the US, foreign capital gains, taxed at
15%, have been a relatively cheap way to launder dirty money: after
all, fake invoicing through a collapsible corporation could cost as
much as 10% and carry a greater risk of audit and disclosure.)

I remember when Swiss banks happily escorted clients with satchels
full of money into private rooms. It may be -- and probably is -- true
that real crooks have no trouble convering and transferring funds via
the Seychelles and other offshore banking centers. But by making it
hard for honest, taxpaying, non-money laundering clients, the banks
are seen to be doing something. For US persons, the Qualified
Intermediary system has reduced opportunities for trading abroad in US
equities without payment of US tax. But the fact is punitive taxation
by the US and the UK of accumulated profits and gains abroad (due to
the foreign trust rules) has made life difficult for US- and UK-
resident persons. Such laws have mostly affected the "minor rich" and
the upper middle classes with assets abroad. The very rich avoid tax
in other ways:
in the UK via the "remittance basis" for nondomiciled persons
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/pdfs/ir20.htm
in the USA through the favorable taxation of gains and options vs.
earned income, and various other concessions to the very rich.

In message John
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:31:55 -0600, DevilsPGD
wrote:

In message John
wrote:

Your carrying over 10 grand in cash and your worried about being held
up at an ATM?

When was the last time you heard of anyone getting mugged in an airport?

Who's talking about the airport?

Your carrying a lot of cash with you at your destination.

Are you going to hide it in your room?

Now that you mention it, I know no one in my life who has had a hotel
room broken into either.

I know several who have been mugged, all but one had left an ATM in the
previous 30 seconds.

Is carrying around a large amount of cash a good idea? Perhaps not. But
it may well be less risk then the alternative, since no one will know of
the amount of cash you are carrying.

In some jurisdictions, hotel safes will be safe enough to leave cash as
well -- Check local law, of course.

--
If quitters never win, and winners never quit,
what fool came up with, "Quit while you're ahead"?

In message , William Black
writes
Technically he can't refuse cash.

He can refuse to sell you a car but he can't refuse payment in 'coin of the
realm'.


Yes he can.
--
John Boyle

In article , Tim wrote:

"Randy Hudson" wrote
A person wishes to compete in events which requires an entry fee. The
World Series of Poker has several events with entry fees of $10,000 US
each, as well as nearly a hundred events with fees ranging from $1000 to
$5000 US each. And no, they don't take American Express, nor Visa.

But *ALL* of those are *under* the threshold mentioned in the OP!

So the person just flies back to Britain between events and picks up some
more cash? Or are you assuming he wins enough as he goes along that its
self-financing?

--
Randy Hudson

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:59:31 -0500, "TMOliver"
wrote:


"Jonathan Bryce" wrote in message
...
William Black wrote:

I'm in the process of buying a new car at the moment. The dealer
informed
me that I can't pay more than 1,000 in cash. Debit card is their
preferred means of payment.

Technically he can't refuse cash.

He can refuse to sell you a car but he can't refuse payment in 'coin of
the realm'.

Yes he can. The only time he can't refuse cash is in settlement of a
debt.
He hasn't given me the car yet, so there is no debt to settle.

Here's a suggestion....

Call the dealer.

Tell him you plan to pay in cash.

He says "No".

Tell him that you'll buy from another dealer (of which there are many), the
old "F*ck you! Strong letter follows." approach to commerce.

You might be amazed at what the thought of losing a sale will do to "rules".

In the USA the biggest headache with paying in cash is that the
transaction will have to be reported to the federal government.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:10:35 -0400, "Frank F. Matthews"
wrote:



Randy Hudson wrote:
In article ,
Jonathan Bryce wrote:


I'm in the process of buying a new car at the moment. The dealer informed
me that I can't pay more than £1,000 in cash. Debit card is their
preferred means of payment.


Really? I bought a new car last month; the dealer informed me I couldn't
charge more than $4000 to my credit card, the rest had to be in cash. And
if I brought a teller's check the salesman would have to drive me to the
bank where I would cash it and use the cash to pay. Anything other than
cash had to go through their credit supplier, which meant paying for a
credit check, waiting extra time, and allowing a lien to be placed on the
car.

Interesting. In purchasing my car last fall ( a used one from a new car
dealer) they took a personal cheque.

That's not cash.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Jun 17, 8:30 pm, John Boyle wrote:
In message , William Black
writes

Technically he can't refuse cash.

He can refuse to sell you a car but he can't refuse payment in 'coin of the
realm'.

Yes he can.
--
John Boyle

Interestingly there is no "legal tender" concept in Britain. The issue
has been discussed I think on uk.finance with research centred on
Scottish, Northern Irish and Channel Island notes. It turned out that
even English notes aren't "legal tender" in the sense of certain other
countries' laws. Anyway, a dealer, or any retailer, can refuse to sell
for any reason other than those (discriminatory) criteria fixed in
law. Or in a case where there has been a binding unilateral offer or
bilateral contract. So it seems.

OIn message . com,
writes
Technically he can't refuse cash.

He can refuse to sell you a car but he can't refuse payment in 'coin of the
realm'.

Yes he can.
--
John Boyle

Interestingly there is no "legal tender" concept in Britain.

There is. Its just that the statement to which I replied was incorrect.
The issue
has been discussed I think on uk.finance with research centred on
Scottish, Northern Irish and Channel Island notes. It turned out that
even English notes aren't "legal tender" in the sense of certain other
countries' laws. Anyway, a dealer, or any retailer, can refuse to sell
for any reason other than those (discriminatory) criteria fixed in
law. Or in a case where there has been a binding unilateral offer or
bilateral contract. So it seems.

Here are the facts :

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/factnote.pdf
--
John Boyle

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:36:13 -0700 'Hatunen'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:10:35 -0400, "Frank F. Matthews"
wrote:

Interesting. In purchasing my car last fall ( a used one from a new car
dealer) they took a personal cheque.

That's not cash.

It is in essence in some countries where it is a criminal offence to
hand over a cheque where the funds are not available for immediate
clearance.

Hatunen wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:10:35 -0400, "Frank F. Matthews"
wrote:

Randy Hudson wrote:

In article ,
Jonathan Bryce wrote:

I'm in the process of buying a new car at the moment. The dealer informed
me that I can't pay more than £1,000 in cash. Debit card is their
preferred means of payment.

Really? I bought a new car last month; the dealer informed me I couldn't
charge more than $4000 to my credit card, the rest had to be in cash. And
if I brought a teller's check the salesman would have to drive me to the
bank where I would cash it and use the cash to pay. Anything other than
cash had to go through their credit supplier, which meant paying for a
credit check, waiting extra time, and allowing a lien to be placed on the
car.

Interesting. In purchasing my car last fall ( a used one from a new car
dealer) they took a personal cheque.

That's not cash.

It is an 'anything else' though.