• Go to page :
  • 1 2
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
I have been reading a few threads about people going through divorce and one thing that stood out was that alimony payments represented about half of the after-tax income. And from what I understand, there is no way to avoid paying them if you're earning income since it will be legally enforced in the U.S.

Here is a possibly legal way for divorced folks to avoid alimony payments:

Move to another country.

AFAIK, alimony payments are legally enforceable only in the USA so you could move to another country such as the U.K. or Canada and start a new life there without having to worry about alimony payments. There is nothing illegal about that because you are not technically earning any income in the United States and as far as your new country is concerned, you have always been single since there was no record of your divorce there.

Obviously, you will need to talk to your divorce lawyer about this strategy but it could work.




Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
bozo007 said: <blockquote><hr>Marquess said: <blockquote><hr>Instead of asking strangers in a finance forum how to duck ... (more)

Marquess (Jun. 10, 2006 @ 6:52p) |

If nothing else, I was prompted to learn one more thing about Roman Polanski I did not know before.<br><br>So it's been ... (more)

unknownshopper (Jun. 10, 2006 @ 7:21p) |

First, if you were going to use this strategy, might I suggest a non-European country such as the Philippines.

VirginiaBob (Jun. 22, 2006 @ 1:07p) |

Quick Summary is created and edited by users like you... Add FAQ's, Links and other Relevant Information by clicking the edit button in the lower right hand corner of this message.

ok....................................

While you are at it why not borrow as much money as you can and flee the country

Yeah, some of us live in states in which DMV can suspend the driving license for alimony non-payment. Good idea, to get a flying license instead...

why not rob a bank and pay it off?

most countries in the world give "full faith & credit" to foreign judgments.

Home country ties / related emotions are a very powerful magnet. Sooner or later, you will feel like coming back and when you do, there will be a warrant waiting.

bozo007 said: [Q]Home country ties / related emotions are a very powerful magnet. Sooner or later, you will feel like coming back and when you do, there will be a warrant waiting.not if you're from [a nameless South Asian country] like kharvel and all you do all day is figure out new ways to be a deadbeat.

BOOO! YOU STINK

wow such a simple solution to a simple problem, almost as good as the solution to simply kill your wife to avoid alimony

kharvel said: [Q]...you could move to another country such as the U.K. or Canada and start a new life there without having to worry about alimony payments. There is nothing illegal about that because you are not technically earning any income in the United States...

Actually, unlike most other countries, unless it is specifically exempted by statute, the American tax system covers income you earn anywhere on the planet. Hell, it would probably cover income earned on the moon. Therefore, you would still be liable, and as 'ArbolLoco' pointed out, most other countries have reciprocal agreements in regards to financial judgments.

There MIGHT be some tax haven countries that would not recognize a tax lien, but you couldn't dare step foot outside their borders. Your idea has a very limited scope. Try a pre-nup.


If you rat out Vinnie and enter the Witness Relocation Program, will your alimony obligation be erased? <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif" border=0>

no, but if you get vinnie to whack your spouse, that cancels the alimony payments.

ArbolLoco said: [Q]most countries in the world give "full faith & credit" to foreign judgments.

Is it nice to make up something you have no idea about.

scrock said: [Q]ArbolLoco said: [Q]most countries in the world give "full faith & credit" to foreign judgments.

Is it nice to make up something you have no idea about.I know it is for me, I regularly make stuff up <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif" border=0>

how about, not getting divorced in the first place?

Why dont you tell us about the most efficient way to sell drugs and not get caught?

BankofGreed said: [Q]Why dont you tell us about the most efficient way to sell drugs and not get caught?

Dope Wars

it's easy to avoid alimony.

don't get married.
if you get married. don't get divorced.
if you get divorced, well, you had 2 chances but apparently you blew both.

Whittaker said: [Q]kharvel said: [Q]...you could move to another country such as the U.K. or Canada and start a new life there without having to worry about alimony payments. There is nothing illegal about that because you are not technically earning any income in the United States...

Actually, unlike most other countries, unless it is specifically exempted by statute, the American tax system covers income you earn anywhere on the planet. Hell, it would probably cover income earned on the moon. Therefore, you would still be liable, and as 'ArbolLoco' pointed out, most other countries have reciprocal agreements in regards to financial judgments.

There MIGHT be some tax haven countries that would not recognize a tax lien, but you couldn't dare step foot outside their borders. Your idea has a very limited scope. Try a pre-nup.

A solution to this is to surrender US citizenship. Some older guys do it when they move abroad, for tax purposes.
But don't ... "Blame Canada!"

Nobody has offered a convincing argument as to why this strategy will not work.

In contrast, I will offer a convincing argument as to why this strategy WILL work:

The United States is not a party to either of the conventions which would allow enforcement of a foreign divorce judgment- Hague Conventions on Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations, and Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. Barrett, International Unification of Private Law-Current Activities, 6 Int'l L.Rev. 675, 680-682 (1972).

From this findlaw.com text

Looks like it's officially summer.

And time for the annual rash of lame schemes for avoiding judgements and perpetrating fraud.

i think kharvel is roman polansky.

If somebody would please link in the obvious Roman Polanski historical reference, this thread would satisfy the FWOT eligibility requirements.

Not so sure why everybody is giving their moral opinion on this. Seems entirely legal. Seems like this strategy could also be used to minimize or avoid child support payments.

But then came along the Patriot Act and its reporting requirements.

Most of these schemes involve moving the money without leaving a trail. The international money laundering provisions of the Patriot Act impose mandatory reporting requirements.

unknownshopper said: [Q] But then came along the Patriot Act and its reporting requirements.

Most of these schemes involve moving the money without leaving a trail. The international money laundering provisions of the Patriot Act impose mandatory reporting requirements.

What does the Patriot Act got to do with moving to another country?? The Patriot Act has no jurisdiction in Canada or UK or anywhere in Europe.

The point everybody seems to be missing here is that a recently divorced person can start a new life in another country with a clean financial slate. There is nothing illegal or immoral about this. And there won't be any "full faith & credit" to any judgement in the U.S. because the U.S. is not party to any treaty honoring such requirement.

I wish people would get off their moral molehill and start debating this point in a rational and logical manner.

1. It's not good moving to another country if you don't have access to your funds.

2. Google on how EU banks have been voluntarily complying with the Patriot Act.

kharvel said: [Q]unknownshopper said: [Q]There is nothing illegal or immoral about this.you are advocating leaving the country for the sole purpose of avoiding a lawfully entered judgment against you and engaging in contempt of court. There is also a high probability of sanctions. There is nothing legal about fleeing a country to avoid legal process.

I know you're probably terrorizing your wife by telling her that if she divorces you you'll leave her broke and destitute by moving back to Country I. Ultimate deadbeat.

While there is likely no reciprocal agreement to collect child support from the country you're moving to... I found this in about 2 minutes of research:

[Q]What is the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992?

The Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 makes it a Federal crime to
willfully fail to pay a past-due child support obligation for a child
living in another State. The past-due child support obligation must
be either greater than $5,000 or must have remained unpaid for more
than one year. In order to establish willfulness, the United States
Attorney's Office must prove that the noncustodial parent knew about
the obligation, was financially able to meet it at the time it was
due, and intentionally did not pay it.

If I were trying to get the DOJ to go after you, I would argue that all four of the following criteria apply to your scheme.

[Q]Which cases are generally considered suitable for prosecution?

Cases considered suitable for prosecution are those in which all
reasonably available remedies have been exhausted. Among such cases
priority is given:

(1) where there is a pattern of
moving from State to State to
avoid payment;

(2) where there is a pattern of
deception (e.g., use of false
name or Social Security
Number);

(3) where there is failure to
make support payments after
being held in contempt of
court; and

(4) where failure to make
support payments is connected
to some other Federal offense
such as bankruptcy fraud.

kharvel said: [Q]What does the Patriot Act got to do with moving to another country?? The Patriot Act has no jurisdiction in Canada or UK or anywhere in Europe.

The point everybody seems to be missing here is that a recently divorced person can start a new life in another country with a clean financial slate. There is nothing illegal or immoral about this. And there won't be any "full faith & credit" to any judgement in the U.S. because the U.S. is not party to any treaty honoring such requirement.

I wish people would get off their moral molehill and start debating this point in a rational and logical manner.Exhibit A in why coming to complicated legal conclusions by yourself is about as safe as performing surgery on yourself.

unknownshopper said: [Q]1. It's not good moving to another country if you don't have access to your funds.

The point of this thread is not to avoid paying settlement funds at the conclusion of the divorce but to avoid FUTURE payments after divorce. Those are the alimony payments from active and passive incomes after divorce including wages, interest income, rental income, and any other incomes derived from sources established AFTER divorce. Therefore, the Patriot Act and access to funds in the USA is not relevant to this topic since all of the funds remaining after settlement can be legally be transferred to a foreign country and there would not be any sources of income remaining in the USA. If a divorcee elects to transfer all post-settlement funds to a foreign country, there is NOTHING the other spouse can do about it since the other spouse already got the settlement money/funds at the time of divorce. He/she would be entitled only to alimony which is completely dependent on the existence of income sources in the USA.

ArbolLoco said: [Q]you are advocating leaving the country for the sole purpose of avoiding a lawfully entered judgment against you and engaging in contempt of court. There is also a high probability of sanctions. There is nothing legal about fleeing a country to avoid legal process.

Actually, it is perfectly legal since you are complying with the legal judgement. You see, the legal judgement says that you have to pay alimony on your sources of income in the USA. If you don't have income sources in the USA, then you don't have to pay alimony. It is a simple concept that any idiot can understand.

[Q]
I know you're probably terrorizing your wife by telling her that if she divorces you you'll leave her broke and destitute by moving back to Country I. Ultimate deadbeat.

You know this how? Did you hire a private investigator? Do you have solid evidence? Do you have ANYTHING other than your opinion, assumption, and conjectures?

If I were to follow your example of basing fact on opinions, assumptions, and conjectures, I would KNOW that you are a high school drop out who is unable to make rational and logical arguments and I also know for a fact that you are a poor person earning less than $20,000 but driving a gas-guzzling SUV.

[Q]If I were trying to get the DOJ to go after you, I would argue that all four of the following criteria apply to your scheme.

[Q]Which cases are generally considered suitable for prosecution?

Cases considered suitable for prosecution are those in which all
reasonably available remedies have been exhausted. Among such cases
priority is given:

(1) where there is a pattern of
moving from State to State to
avoid payment;

(2) where there is a pattern of
deception (e.g., use of false
name or Social Security
Number);

(3) where there is failure to
make support payments after
being held in contempt of
court; and

(4) where failure to make
support payments is connected
to some other Federal offense
such as bankruptcy fraud.

I am not sorry to burst your bubble but the above law applies only to persons living in the UNITED STATES. The law is intended to address the cases of individuals seeking to avoid alimony payments by moving from one State in the United States of America to another State in the United States of America. Last time I checked, a foreign country is NOT a State in the United States of America. If you were to move to another country, the law becomes unenforceable and probably inapplicable.

ArbolLoco said: [Q]Exhibit A in why coming to complicated legal conclusions by yourself is about as safe as performing surgery on yourself.

Exihibit B in why making a sweeping statement without supporting arguments, evidence, and facts is about as smart as driving a gas-guzzling SUV on an income of less than $20,000.

First obligatory link regarding Roman Polanski

Some lives are truly stranger than fiction. Polanski's is one of them.

Including his family fleeing to Poland in 1937 to escape persecution.

kharvel said: [Q]I am not sorry to burst your bubble but the above law applies only to persons living in the UNITED STATES. The law is intended to address the cases of individuals seeking to avoid alimony payments by moving from one State in the United States of America to another State in the United States of America. Last time I checked, a foreign country is NOT a State in the United States of America. If you were to move to another country, the law becomes unenforceable and probably inapplicable.The power over interstate commerce also includes power over international commerce.

[Q]New Measures in Criminal Law: Federal and state prosecutors are finding new ways to use criminal measures to pursue individuals in arrears for child support enforcement. The U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Divisionís Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section has interesting news about the implementation of the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act also known as the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 ( 18 USC 228 ) and how states are using criminal remedies successfully. The Act creates a Federal offense for (1) travelling in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent to evade a child support obligation, if the obligation has remained unpaid for longer than 1 year or is greater than $5,000, and (2) the willful failure to pay a past due child support obligation for a child who resides in a state other than that in which the non-custodial parent resides, if the obligation has remained unpaid for longer than 1 year or is greater than $5,000; the willful failure to pay a past due obligation may qualify as a felony if it has remained unpaid for longer than 2 years or is greater than $10,000. See also "Child Support Reform in Action: New Strategies and New Frontiers in Massachusetts" for insight into state activities.

kharvel said: [Q]ArbolLoco said: [Q]Exhibit A in why coming to complicated legal conclusions by yourself is about as safe as performing surgery on yourself.

Exihibit B in why making a sweeping statement without supporting arguments, evidence, and facts is about as smart as driving a gas-guzzling SUV on an income of less than $20,000.

see Exhibit A infra.

I would go on about how income earned abroad by a US citizen is taxable income but you have zero credibility left and I'm not going to bother wasting my time.



[Q]Who must file a return? Any US citizen (throughout this fact sheet the term US citizen includes both citizens and US resident aliens) who has worldwide income in excess of the sum of his or her standard deduction and personal exemption must file a return annually. For 2005 the standard deduction amounts for most people are $10,000 (married filing jointly), $5,000 (single or married filing separately), and $7,300 (head of household). The personal exemption amount is $3,200 for each taxpayer and dependent.

kharvel said: [Q]I also know for a fact that you are a poor person earning less than $20,000 but driving a gas-guzzling SUV.haha what a birdbrain.

kharvel said: [Q] Last time I checked, a foreign country is NOT a State in the United States of America.

Nah. They only THINK they aren't.

And, for the time being, it serves our purpose to let them continue to think that way. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border=0>

ArbolLoco said: [Q]I know you're probably terrorizing your wife by telling her that if she divorces you you'll leave her broke and destitute by moving back to Country I. Ultimate deadbeat.

haha what a birdbrain.

kharvel,

please specifically address the fact that the CSRA specifically criminalizes the behavior you are advocating.

also, please specifically address every false and incorrect interpretation of law you have put forward.

finally, please address your rationale behind advocating a FELONY in order to escape alimony obligations. alternatively, please describe the kind of deadbeat who would flee the country rather than support his wife and family.

thank you,
arbolloco

extra credit:

please address the fact that your thread is among the all-time lowest rated threads on this forum OR address the fact that your credibility is in shreds.

Skipping 8 Messages...
First, if you were going to use this strategy, might I suggest a non-European country such as the Philippines.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014