the CEN-TA PEDE
david ingram's US/Canadian Newsletter Page 113-116
See U.S. citizenship chart on page 116. You may be a United States Citizen.
NEW United States / Canada Income TAX TREATY
August's CEN-TAPEDE promised that we would have the details of the US/CANADA Tax Treaty. The United States has signed the treaty, but Canada has not and it has not yet been released. Dr Jerry White says that it is expected to be signed by Canada in October. I hope it is. We waited from 1980 to 1985 for the 1980 treaty to be signed and I hope that this one is done quickly so we can get on with it.
And speaking of Dr Jerry White, I was fortunate enough to be one of the 600 people that attended a FORTUNE FINANCIAL seminar at Michael Kaile's WATERFRONT Hotel on September 14th. His no holds barred and very sarcastic speech (which managed to insult every politician, minority group, and religion, as well as himself) was brilliant, pointing out economic factors to look out for, calling attention to the foibles of many prominent politicians and extolling the wisdom of buying shares in quality corporations. He correctly pointed out that no one gets rich from T-Bill or CD investments.
He also pointed out three golden investment jewels for sophisticated investors which he has personally researched and recommended above all other investments in Canada. Those three were:
1. Regal Pacific Mortgage Corporation which has returned over 20% for the last two years (minimum subscription $25,000).
2. NCE Oil and Gas Fund with an expected rate of return of over 20%. Minimums of $12,500 investment by prospectus and $27,500 by offering memorandum.
3. Magellan Corporation's Real Estate (LLP, REIF and REIT) projects when available. Magellan looks for "vendor distressed" buildings, buys them at deep discounts, renovates when required, and sells them within five years with the Limited Liability Partners reaping the lion's share of the profits.
This is not an offer to sell these products. To buy, you must be given a prospectus or offering memorandum and you are supposed to have read the documents. Although I have used the word "guarantee", the guarantee is not a CDIC (Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation) guarantee. The guarantee is backed by the underlying value of the assets and the depth of the country. Also, please note that david ingram and / or other CEN-TA Group members may be receiving direct or indirect compensation. i.e. even goodwill has been ruled compensation.
All three of Jerry White's recommendations are available from Doug Gartland or Jim Perkins at Fortune Financial (6811300). MAGELLAN is a sophisticated investor product which can be bought from FORTUNE or REGAL CAPITAL PLANNERS (George Hatton at 913-9133) or the LIGHTHOUSE Realty office in Abbotsford (Ross McDonald or Betty Scott at 649-4871). NCE is available from George Hatton (913-9133) or Fred Snyder (731-8900) of Regal Capital Planners. Please note that there is no relationship between Regal Capital Planners and the Regal Pacific Mortgage Corporation Fund. The names are just a co-incidence.
And Speaking of seminars, 7:00 PM Monday, Sept 18, 1995 found me happily ensconced in the front row at Ozzie Jurrock's Real Estate Investment Seminar. This seminar was real estate oriented while Jerry White's seminar was paper investment oriented (mutual funds, oil and gas, etc., and although MAGELLAN is certainly real estate, you only own a piece of it.
I had already heard of Ozzie's first speaker. Back in December, 94 John Sanderson told me that Andrew Bury (688-0401) was the best foreclosure lawyer in Vancouver. Andrew Bury is a partner in the law firm of Owen, Bird and specializes in "real estate security enforcement". i.e., he forecloses on property. He worked through the details of a foreclosure, explaining the history of process serving and the difference in types of property:
1. Real Property (real estate or attached to real estate such as house, garage, warehouse).
2. Personal Property (we used to call this Tangible) (car, fridge, pen),
3. Incorporeal Property (we used to call this Intangible) (copyrights, patents, etc.)
He explained that a mortgage is not what we usually think it is, and that it really transfers (subject to court order) the property to the lender and that British Columbia law is the most favourable to the borrower when it comes to foreclosures.
He then explained how important it is to define exactly "what" is mortgaged or liened. In one case, he was foreclosing on a property in Manitoba. When the banker went out to look at the property, there was no house, just a bare foundation. The farmer had lifted the house up, put wheels under it and trundled it down the road to Saskatchewan where a relative had a convenient foundation which just happened to fit the farmer's house. The farmer then put a mortgage on the property (and house) with a Saskatchewan credit union. The Manitoba banker lost out.
In another case, after 7 or 8 years of late or no payments, a financial institution foreclosed on a bowling alley / recreational centre in Surrey. The day after the foreclosure, the "previous owner" showed up and said he wanted his personal property. He wanted the tables and chairs and the food in the fridge and the fridge and the liquor behind the bar and, and, and. He left with some $79,000 worth of goods. But that was not the end of it. The next day he showed up with a letter from a Victoria lawyer stating that the "bowling lanes" were personal property. This is where Andrew Bury came into the picture. The institution called him and asked if bowling alleys were personal property. He checked and found out that there were only two cases on the subject, one from just after World War I and the other from just before World War II. He then phoned Brunswick Bowling Alleys who said something to the effect that, "of course they are personal property. We sell bowling alleys. When we don't get paid, we send a crew and take them back and sell them to someone else." The fellow left with $330,000 worth of bowling alleys. He then came back for eleven $15,000 pin setters. Altogether, about $574,000 worth of personal "stuff" that the mortgage lender thought was "theirs" (after the foreclosure) was removed from the property. Obviously, the paperwork was not drawn up properly to start with from the lender's point of view.
Over the years I have seen dozens of situations where people had loaned money on something and found out that they did not have the security they thought existed. In today's falling market, it is especially important to keep your self protected from loss if you are the lender.
Foot in Mouth Disease
Have you ever seen a movie you loved panned in the newspaper by a reviewer or thought a speaker was erudite, thoughtful, witty, intelligent and all around "charming", only to have your very own spouse totally pan the speaker and / or disagree with everything said? Well, that happened to me with the next speaker, Shelly Calhoun. I had never met Shelly (still have not met or talked to) but had mentioned her appearance in this newsletter and several people attended because of that mention.
I was looking for some really good information on foreclosures. Instead, I got a rehash of things I had known for 30 years. In fact, Pat Stretch and his wife Janet had published a Foreclosure news magazine called "BUSINESS TODAY" from Ray Dunlop and Ted Bradshaw's CEN-TA Group office years ago.
Shelly Calhoun's "IDEAL SOURCE" publication (327-7595) was the same thing, listing mortgage foreclosures, building permits, and new business licences. It was old hat to me and I must have closed my mind off a bit and not paid attention because the audience loved the presentation. They hadn't already bought 150 foreclosures (as our group has) and it was brand new to most of the audience. Ozzie has told me since that more than 50 people signed up for the newsletter and that was 12.5% of the audience.
For an entertaining and extremely informative look at "how to buy a Limited Liability Partnership" and the "Anatomy of a Deal", get hold of Sam Allman's book "BUY IT BY THE ACRE, SELL IT BY THE FOOT". You can pick it up at book stores like Duthie's or give all the profit to Sam by ordering direct from Sam at the WESTHAVEN GROUP at (604) 739-7768. Sam Allman has given over 3,000 real estate investment seminars. Interestingly enough, both Sam and Ozzie are now agreeing with me and are saying that this is not the time to be buying investment real estate in British Columbia.
Are you (or could you be) BANNED from the United States?
U.S. Waivers. Readers are cautioned that with the drop in border traffic, U.S. Immigration officers have lots of time to check out visitors. If you have a Canadian conviction for something serious or even for what might have seemed a minor case of moral turpitude (the U.S. term) which means an old shoplifting incident or maybe a joy riding incident or a bad cheque charge or even a charge against you that was stayed by the crown, you are banned from the United States unless you get a Waiver from the U.S. Justice Department. Note that a Canadian Pardon is of no use at the U.S. border and even though you do not have to tell (if asked) a Canadian authority about a pardoned conviction, you do have to tell a British or French or U.S. immigration officer). Getting a Canadian Pardon or having a Conditional Discharge does not exempt you from being banned from the U.S. (The pardon or discharge is helpful when applying for the waiver.) And for anyone else, if you are just driving south with a friend who has a previous charge or conviction, you can lose your car because your passenger is banned.
You can pick up a waiver package at the U.S. Immigration office at Vancouver Airport, the U.S. Consul's office on West Pender, or any of the border crossings such as Huntington, or Peace Arch or Oroville. If you find yourself in this situation, whatever you do, do not cross the border in the meantime. If caught, you can lose your car, motorhome, boat, etc.
If you have any problems with the forms, I recommend lawyer Michael Jacobsen at (604) 736-0065.
FOR MEN ONLY "or I always wanted a HUMMER" - TEST DRIVE from HELL:
Three years ago I walked into Jose's (my wife) office and left her a flyer on the HUMMER with a hint that I wanted one for Father's day. It was to take the place of the $500 rusted out 1979 Jeep Cherokee I was driving (the one with 1200 studs in the wheels for winter snow driving). HUMMERS cost about $100,000 Canadian and needless to say, I didn't get one. She did have a good excuse though because at the time, HUMMERS were not allowed into Canada because they had not being approved by the Department of Transport. I am pleased to say that there is now a dealer in North Vancouver and their service shop is next door to AAMCO on Marine Drive. I stopped to get my transmission's annual inspection and lo and behold, there was a HUMMER sitting there with flat tires. I assumed that someone had come along with a knife and slashed them as happened to 16 cars at Capilano Mall last year. No, that wasn't it.
HUMMERS go anywhere. They have 18 inches of clearance and one of the features is that the HUMMER has a button on the dash which when pushed, reduces air pressure in each tire to 10 pounds and allows the tires to spread out for traversing boggy or sandy areas. Another button reinflates the tires when needed. To accomplish this, one has to have an air inlet into the tires. This line is made out of plastic. In this case, the test driver had run the HUMMER up to the top of a mountain at Whistler. He left it in overdrive and burnt out the transmission. That meant no engine breaking on the way down. He (or she) stood on the brakes so hard that they heated up high enough to melt the air lines. BINGO! Four flat tires, or almost flat, remember the 10 pounds of pressure in a separate bladder.
David Berner Show on CKNW, CHED, CJOB, etc.
I did the David Berner Show at 00:01 AM on September 12 and have been amazed by the number of enquiries from people wanting to know if they are a U S Citizen. The chart was previously included in the June and December, 94 CEN-TAPEDE editions. However, what is happening is that people remember they got it, but threw it away and now have discovered that their girlfriend's (or their sister's new husband's) mother's mother was born in the U.S. and "mother" is a U.S. citizen. This means that mother can sponsor their child into the U.S. (not as a citizen, but as a resident alien "green" card holder.)
Why would this matter? Well under NAFTA, (North American Free Trade Agreement), almost all professionals or those who need a degree to practice their profession, can get instant access to go to the United States or Mexico and work under the terms of a TN (Treaty NAFTA) visa. This visa is obtainable by showing up with your degree and a job offer at the airport. To be sure, the job must be of a temporary nature, but the job and visa can be extended indefinitely on an annual basis.
In the last three years, we have likely had 30 people go south to work for Microsoft. No problem if a degree, but strangely enough, Bill Gates would not qualify to work for himself under NAFTA's Free Trade because he does not have the required degree. (To be sure, as a person of exceptional merit, he could likely get south under the H classification, but that would take time and he would have to produce published articles and references attesting to his exceptional merit.)
However, If Mom or Dad is a U.S. citizen (or maybe even a grandfather or a grandmother), your mother or father can sponsor their child for a resident alien card to live and work in the United States. Junior can go south and start work with no restrictions.
Remember the disadvantage to mom or dad is that ALL U.S. CITIZENS HAVE TO FILE U.S. INCOME TAX RETURNS EVERY YEAR EVEN IF THEY LIVE IN CANADA AND HAVE ONLY CANADIAN INCOME. In this case, mom or dad has to catch up their U.S. tax returns from 1987 to 1994.
For determining whether LEGITIMATE CHILDREN BORN OUTSIDE THE U.S.
acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.
PERIOD | PARENTS | RESIDENCE REQUIRED OF:
| | PARENT or | CHILD .
STEP 1 | STEP 2 | STEP 3 | STEP 4 .
Select | Select | Measure citizen parent's residence | Determine whether child
period in | applicable | against the requirements for the | has since lost U.S.
which | parentage | period in which child was born. | citizenship. (The child
child was | | (The child acquired U.S. citizen- | lost on the date it became
born. | | ship at birth if, at time of the | impossible to meet the
| | child's birth, citizen parent had | necessary requirements,
| | met applicable residence | never before age 26.)
| | requirements.) | .
Prior to | one parent | Citizen parent had resided in the | None.
05/24/34 | US citizen | U.S. (Originally only fathers could |
| | transmit; mothers added Oct, 94) | [see note (5)] .
On/after | Both are | One had resided in the U.S. | None.
05/24/34 | citizens | | .
& prior to | One citizen | Citizen had resided in the U.S. | 5 year's residence in the
01/13/41 | one alien | | U.S. or its outlying
| parent. | | possessions between ages of
On/after | One citizen | Citizen had resided in U.S. or its | 13 and 21. OR, 2 years'
01/13/41 | one alien | outlying possessions 10 years, at | continuous presence in
and prior | parent. | least 5 of which were after age | U.S. between ages 14 and
to | | 16, or if citizen parent served | 28. (NONE, if at time
12/24/52 | | honorably in U.S. Armed Forces: | of child's birth, citizen
| | (1) between 12/07/41 and 12/31/46 | parent was employed
| | (5 of the required years may | by a specified U.S.
| | have been after age 12); or (2) | organization. This
| | between 12/31/46 and 12/24/52, | exemption is not applicable
| | parent needed 10 years physical | if parent transmitted
| | presence, at least 5 of which | under *(1) or *(2) opposite.)
| | were after age 14. | Notes (1), (2), and (4). .
| Both are | One had resided in the U.S. or its | None.
| US citizens | outlying possessions. | .
On/after | Both are | One had resided in the U.S. or its | None.
12/24/52 | citizen | outlying possessions (3). | .
& prior to | One citizen | Citizen has been physically present in | None.
11/14/86 | one alien | US or outlying possessions 10 years, |
| parent. | at least 5 which are after age 14 (3). | .
On/after | Both are | One had resided in the U.S. or its | None.
11/14/86 | citizen | outlying possessions | .
| One citizen | Citizen has been physically present in | None.
| one alien | US or outlying possessions 5 years, |
| parent. | at least 2 which are after age 14 (3). | .
1. Absence of less than 60 days in the aggregate (total) will not break continuity of physical presence for this purpose. Honorable service in US armed forces counts as residence or physical presence.
2. No specific period of residence is required if alien parent naturalized before child reaches 18 years and child begins to reside permanently in U.S. prior to 18th birthday.
3. Physical presence abroad of dependent unmarried son or daughter as member of household of a person serving honorably in U.S. Armed Forces or employed by U.S. government or international organization may be counted as physical presence.
4. The retention requirement was repealed by Act of 10/10/78. Persons who had on 10/10/78 failed to retain are relieved from having to do so. Those who have previously lost citizenship by a failure to satisfy retention requirements of the Acts of 1934, 1940, and 1952 may not be reinstated.
5. Until Oct 20, 94, only father could transmit. Changed with President Clinton signing the Technical Corrections Bill giving citizenship to children of US citizen mothers.
(recreated from official US documentation for the CEN-TA-PEDE, newsletter of the CEN-TA GROUP).