C-50 Limited Power Of Attorney: Fill & Download for Free

Original question: “What is something in the U.S. Constitution interpreted differently than the founders probably intended?”Best example: The Fifth Amendment’s “Takings” clause. Here’s something I wrote when the Kelo v. New London case was being decided by the Supreme Court: Slouching Towards DespotismSCOTUSblog reports on today's oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo vs. City of New London. For some background, the Kelo case is about the abuse of eminent domain law, where the government takes property from individual citizens. I've covered several cases of eminent domain abuse, but this one's a doozy. CNN's Money site has a good background story on the case.Wilhelmina Dery, 87, was born in her century-old house near the Thames River.Her son, Matt, and daughter-in-law, Suzanne, live next door with their teenage son, Andrew. Among their most precious possessions: the garden planted by Matt's grandmother, and the kitchen doorway where they've charted Andrew's height over the years.The Derys' neighbors have their own, similar stories.Bill Von Winkle bought his first building in the neighborhood 20 years ago, and went to work making sandwiches in the downstairs deli and renovating the upstairs apartments.Susette Kelo meticulously restored her small pink Victorian house.So when the New London Economic Development Corporation, a non-profit organization appointed by the city, approached about 70 property owners in Fort Trumbull about selling their homes to make space for a luxury hotel, condominiums and office space, these and a handful of other owners declined.Their property, they said, is not for sale.In November 2000, however, the city invoked eminent domain – a government right to seize property for public use – and sent out condemnation notices to owners refusing to sell. The city planned to pay the owners fair market value, take possession of the buildings and tear them down.According to Daniel Krisch, one of the attorney's representing New London and its economic development arm, the city had several good reasons for razing the well-kept middle class neighborhood to replace it with a new, private development.Krisch contends that the new development would create jobs, boost tax revenue, improve the city's infrastructure and provide public access to the river. It's for the benefit of the entire community, he said.(Emphasis mine.) Read the whole thing.At issue is the Fifth Amendment's takings clause:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.But in this case, it isn't being taken "for public use." It's being taken from one private party, and it's being given (or sold) to another private party on the grounds that "boosting tax revenue" constitutes "public use." No it doesn't. It constitutes enriching the government coffers.As you can imagine, I consider this to be an extreme abuse of the Constitution. In the parlance of "slippery slopes," eminent domain was first abused back in the 50's when "urban renewal" was big. The case of Berman v. Parker was the first suit. It challenged the The District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945. The Supreme Court found:The District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 is constitutional, as applied to the taking of appellants' building and land (used solely for commercial purposes) under the power of eminent domain, pursuant to a comprehensive plan prepared by an administrative agency for the redevelopment of a large area of the District of Columbia so as to eliminate and prevent slum and substandard housing conditions - even though such property may later be sold or leased to other private interests subject to conditions designed to accomplish these purposes.(a) The power of Congress over the District of Columbia includes all the legislative powers which a state may exercise over its affairs.(b) Subject to specific constitutional limitations, the legislature, not the judiciary, is the main guardian of the public needs to be served by social legislation enacted in the exercise of the police power; and this principle admits of no exception merely because the power of eminent domain is involved.(c) This Court does not sit to determine whether or not a particular housing project is desirable.(d) If Congress decides that the Nation's Capital shall be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way.(e) Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to realize it through the exercise of eminent domain is clear.(f) Once the public purpose has been established, the means of executing the project are for Congress and Congress alone to determine.(g) This Court cannot say that public ownership is the sole method of promoting the public purposes of a community redevelopment project; and it is not beyond the power of Congress to utilize an agency of private enterprise for this purpose or to authorize the taking of private property and its resale or lease to the same or other private parties as part of such a project.(h) It is not beyond the power of Congress or its authorized agencies to attack the problem of the blighted parts of the community on an area rather than on a structure-by-structure basis. Redevelopment of an entire area under a balanced integrated plan so as to include not only new homes but also schools, churches, parks, streets, and shopping centers is plainly relevant to the maintenance of the desired housing standards and therefore within congressional power.(i) The standards contained in the Act are sufficiently definite to sustain the delegation of authority to administrative agencies to execute the plan to eliminate not only slums but also the blighted areas that tend to produce slums.(j) Once the public purpose is established, the amount and character of the land to be taken for the project and the need for a particular tract to complete the integrated plan rests in the discretion of the legislature.(k) If the Redevelopment Agency considers it necessary in carrying out a redevelopment project to take full title to the land, as distinguished from the objectionable buildings located thereon, it may do so.(l) The rights of these property owners are satisfied when they receive the just compensation which the Fifth Amendment exacts as the price of the taking.Note the repeated reference to "slums" and "blighted areas." The justification for the land-grab was "urban renewal" - the elimination of slums and "blighted areas" which was a public good, but not necessarily public use. And this decision justified selling property taken under eminent domain to other private parties.Yet the Fifth Amendment is pretty explicit in its call for "public use."This decision was followed by Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff in 1984, in which the State of Hawaii used eminent domain to take large lots of land from their private owners, then break up those lots and sell the pieces to the tenants living on them. But because the original owner got "just compensation," this theft was made legal.First step down the slippery slope: "Urban renewal of blighted areas and slums" as justification.Second step down the slippery slope: "Fair redistribution" as justification.Third step down the slippery slope: "Boosting tax revenue" as justification.SCOTUSblog reports:Marty (Lederman) reports that, based on the impression left by the oral arguments, the government-side is going to win today's property rights cases overwhelmingly.In Kelo, the plaintiffs may get as many as three votes: Scalia; Thomas (who did not ask any questions); and Rehnquist (who was not there). But it was clear to O'Connor and Kennedy that the Court would have to overrule Midkiff and Berman to rule for the plaintiffs, an approach for which there was no majority. The only possible silver lining for property-rights advocates was that Justices Kennedy, Souter, O'Connor and Breyer all expressed concern that the traditional measures of just compensation under the Fifth Amendment may be subject to reconsideration. Justice Kennedy acknowledged the question wasn't presented in Kelo, but the Court's opinion or a concurrence may raise the issue, opening a new avenue of property-rights litigation.In Lingle, it appears that the government will win unanimously. As Justice Scalia put it at argument, the Court may have to "eat crow" and abandon the suggestion it has made in several cases that there is a "substantially advances" test for what constitutes a taking.(Lingle refers to Lingle, Linda (Hawaii Gov.), et al. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., which is being heard simultaneously.)Professor Bainbridge comments on the case, quoting The Economist:Put simply, cities cannot take someone's house just because they think they can make better use of it. Otherwise, argues Scott Bullock, Mrs Kelo's lawyer, you end up destroying private property rights altogether. For if the sole yardstick is economic benefit, any house can be replaced at any time by a business or shop (because they usually produce more tax revenues). Moreover, if city governments can seize private property by claiming a public benefit which they themselves determine, where do they stop? If they decide it is in the public interest to encourage locally-owned shops, what would prevent them compulsorily closing megastores, or vice versa? This is central planning.That's exactly right. You and I can see that, but through the miracle (snort!) of stare decisis, SCOTUS appears to have backed itself into a corner where it cannot admit that fact, even if it wanted to - and my guess is that at least four if not more justices wouldn't want to anyway. They like central planning.Re-read that excerpt from the Berman decision; "If Congress decides that the Nation's Capital shall be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way." If that's not an endorsement of central planning, I don't know what it is.Francis Porretto wrote last year in his piece No Law Abridging that when the Supreme Court upheld the McCain-Feingold (Incumbent Protection) Finance Reform Act:(T)hen two days ago, the Supreme Court declared itself to be a lawless organ in service to a totalitarian State. The five Justices who voted to uphold the clearly unConstitutional McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act placed their notions of “compelling government interest” and “the good of society” above the Supreme Law Of The Land, which for two centuries it has been the Court’s sworn duty to safeguard.Let that thought sink in for a moment. Five Justices of the Supreme Court have abrogated the very contract from which their authority and responsibilities derive. There’s no room for hedging here. They didn’t just interpret an ambiguity in the Constitution in a way that, though novel, could be squared with the public meanings of words and the traditions of Constitutional law. They dropped the document in the mud and pissed on it.Well, they've gone about it more slowly with this select portion of the 5th Amendment, but they're about to unzip and let fly again, from all indications. I quoted Justice Scalia last year in This is NOT What I Wanted to Read:It is literally true that the U.S. Supreme Court has entirely liberated itself from the text of the Constitution--We are free at last, free at last. There is no respect in which we are chained or bound by the text of the Constitution. All it takes is five hands.He was not waxing enthusiastic about the idea.Francis also said this:A man is not free because he’s permitted to vote for his political masters. The subjects of the late, unlamented Soviet Union enjoyed that “right.” So did the subjects of Saddam Hussein.A man is not free because some portion of his earnings is still his to spend on a variety of attractive goods. Not if the government can punish him for choosing goods it has not approved.A man is not free because the long arm of the law has not yet descended on his neck. That’s more properly called a stay of execution.A man is free if, and only if, he has the unchallenged right to do as he damned well pleases with his life, his property, and with any other responsible, consenting adult, provided only that he respects the equal freedom of all other men.Yup. And it's pretty damned obvious that a man's right to do as he damned well pleases with his property no longer exists, either.Back when I wrote The Courts Will Not Save Us series I quoted Rev. Donald Sensing from the same week as Francis Porretto's piece:I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I’d tell them to emigrate, but there’s nowhere left to go. I am left with nauseating near-conviction that I am a member of the last generation in the history of the world that is minimally truly free.I'm not blaming Bush. This is the result of literally decades of bad decisions, that because of stare decisis the Courts simply will not correct as we go slouching towards despotism.

There are many things you should bring with you.Bring or buy a nice camera with you for photos and video. You will one day treasure them deeply when you look back on your time in Japan.Take all the OTC meds you think you are going to need - eye drops, aspirin, vitamins, allergy pills, sunblock, antacids, deodorant, cold meds etc - prices for them in Japan are pretty much highway robbery. That said, do not take anything with psuedoephedrine or opiods, or you could land yourself in hot water.Carry a thin calculator, calculator watch, or a smart phone with a similar app for understanding prices. Many cities have a tourist info office in their main station - use them. Often you can get free maps and helpful info.Carry tissues or hand towels with you – most of the public bathrooms don’t have hand-drying facilities, and a few don't even have toilet paper.To keep in touch with friends and family, become an expert in using Skype, or get something like a Magic Jack.If you like to watch some TV programs, they may be online in the US but you'll find them geo-blocked while in Japan. You might consider getting a VPN service to be able to watch them.If you have any friends or family having birthdays or other celebrations while you are in Japan, then buy the cards before leaving and mail them from Japan. Selection of cards in English in Japan is quite limited and they can be pricey.Learn as much of the Japanese language as you can - whatever you learn will make your time in Japan better and more productive. For learning Japanese, you might look at Learn Japanese Free, 123Japanese, or JapanesePod101.Learn Japanese manners and etiquette - don't come off as some idiot while there.Learn metric conversions - nearly the whole world is on the metric system, and you will have to use it to get by. Such basic things are 23kg (50 lbs) - the typical airline suitcase weight limit, 1 mile is approx 1.61 km, 2.2 lbs = 1kg, 2.54 cm = 1 inch, 500 ml = a bit over a pint, 20°C=68°F, 30°C=86°F, etc etc.Bring some lightweight small unique items to give as gifts to people - many will help you out and do you some big favors. Keychains, jam, ashtrays, calendars, etc. Take some photos or postcards of your home area with you too - some Japanese may chat you up some time.Look for the ¥100 stores like Daiso where you can pick up a lot of living items like utensils very cheaply. Don Quijote is another popular discount store.For money, overall it is far more convenient to use your ATM card in Japan at a 7-11 or Japanese Post Office compared to exchanging cash. There will be a certain fee for using it (check with your bank first) as well as a foreign exchange fee, but often is only a few dollars unless you are doing business with a rip off bank. Having your money in a credit union will often be a lot kinder to your wallet in many ways.If you do plan to use your ATM card in Japan, make sure the bank knows about it first so they don't don't suspect fraudulent usage and freeze your account. I have heard from many British and Australians that the rate is better in their home countries. You can see the current rates in Japan and decide for yourself. You can also see what Japanese money looks like at:A Guide To Japanese MoneyNote that you can not use 1 or 5 yen coins in vending machines and phones.If you have any banking or financial issues, consider making your parent or sibling have a limited power of attorney so they can conduct legal actions for you.You can read a lot more helpful info on The Japan FAQ page.You don't say where in Japan you will be, but if in Tokyo or you do go there at some point, you can take advantage of a Tokyo Wide Pass, and it's about the only regional rail pass that non-Japanese residents in Japan can actually buy. Study the history of the area you will be in as well as Japan - it will make your stay so much more meaningful. Learn about the best places to see in the area you will be at. There are several comprehensive sites you can look through, such as Japan Guide and the JNTO page. Many official city and town webpages have their own sightseeing info on them in English, Korean and Chinese, and often you'll find good places that are listed nowhere else.Youtube can also be an excellent resource - many ex-pats and travelers put up videos of good places to see. Try browsing through:thejapanfaqaqua geographicegawauemonGood luck.

The United States does not place any restrictions on non-US citizens buying and owning real estate in the United States even if you never visited the United States. You won't need a green card to buy a house in the USA, but you will need an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). Depending on your nationality, you may also need a valid foreign passport, visa and two or more current photo identifications, such as a driver's license.According to VISIT-USA Act, foreign nationals can buy property in USA worth of minimum Half a Million Dollar ($500,000) and get 3 years visa to stay in the United States. This visa does not provide work permit and one must stay in this residence at least for six months (not necessarily consecutive) in a year.Congress created the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program in 1990 to stimulate the U.S. economy through job creation and capital investment by foreign investors. Under this program, a foreigner who invests $500,000 — and in some instances, $1 million — in a project that will create at least 10 jobs can apply for a green card. It generally takes from 22 to 26 months to obtain legal residency through the program.In addition, there are E-2 Treaty Investors, which allows an individual to enter and work inside of the USA based on an investment he or she will be controlling, while inside the United States. This visa must generally be renewed every two years, but there is no limit to how many times one can renew. The investment must be "substantial." Investor visas are available only to Treaty Countries.Here is some important information you might need to know before you proceed forward.Get an ITIN:To obtain an ITIN, you must complete IRS Form W-7, IRS Application for Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. The Form W-7 requires documentation substantiating foreign/alien status and true identity for each individual. You may either mail the documentation, along with the Form W-7, to the address shown in the Form W-7 Instructions, present it at IRS walk-in offices, or process your application through an Acceptance Agent authorized by the IRS.Type of Property You Can Buy:You can buy single-family homes, condominiums, duplexes, triplexes, quadraplexes and townhomes. But you can not buy housing cooperatives or co-ops, because in order to buy a co-op you must have income inside the USA and a lot of co-ops generally prohibit foreign ownership.Financing:It is possible to obtain financing for a purchase by a foreign buyer, however, foreigners are more likely to pay higher interest rates. Most qualified Foreign Buyers can obtain financing for properties with a 30% down payment ( 40% for Miami). You will need to have $100,000 on deposit with the bank and if you withdraw money and your deposit goes below this threshold, your interest rate will increase. And the loan limit for foreign buyers are within $3,000,000. You are welcome to make an all-cash purchase, but U.S. law mandates that cash transactions over $10,000 be reported to the federal government.Closing:If you want to attend your real estate closing you are more than welcome, but it is not necessary for you to be in the US. Rather, you can provide your representative with “Power of Attorney” and the representative will have the right to close the deal on behalf of you. This is quite common and convenient for the buyer who does not want to come back to the US for the closing.Taxes:A foreigner does not need to pay a specific tax due to their residence status. The US government requires that the Foreign National “elect” to pay US income taxes on any net income (rental revenues less expenses) derived from rental property. If this election is not made in a timely fashion (e.g., US income tax returns not filed), a tax of 30% of the gross rental income will be assessed. Under this scenario, the investor would not be able to deduct any expenses such as depreciation, interest, property taxes, common charges, etc. Even if the Foreign Investor is incurring tax losses in the beginning years of their investment, and, therefore, doesn’t owe any taxes to the government, they still must file their tax returns in a timely manner in order to make the election.Foreign buyers who finance their purchases with a 40% to 50% down payment are usually able to avoid paying income taxes on any rental income derived from the property for the first 10 to 15 years. This results from the types of expenses the U.S. government allows taxpayers to deduct from their income when filing income taxes. Things like mortgage interest, common charges, property taxes, and depreciation are included in these calculations, often leading to “negative income” calculations, meaning no taxes will need to be paid.A foreign person needs to pay gains tax and FIRTPA withholding tax. Federal Gains tax is currently 15% of the net capital gain. Net capital gain is the amount of the gain on the property with the original purchase price, closing costs, and capital improvements (renovations), subtracted out.Homeowners in the U.S. are subject to property taxes regardless of their nationality. Property taxes vary from state to state, and even within states, from 2.076% in Bergen County, New Jersey to 0.251% in Hawaii County, Hawaii.Foreign persons are also subject to Federal estate tax on property owned in the U.S. when they die. Currently the estate tax rate can be as high as 35%. U.S. citizens are given an individual exemption from the tax up to 5 million dollars. Married couples are currently exempt up to 10 million dollars. However, non U.S. citizens are not granted the exemption, unless a treaty exists with their country. See the discussion on treaties below. As a result, property valued above $60,000 is subject to estate tax. Discussed below are suggestions of vehicles that can be created to avoid Federal Estate tax including an irrevocable trust and a foreign holding company.This is easily avoided if the Foreign Buyer does some upfront planning. The planning involves setting up a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) and a Foreign Corporation. The LLC would own the property, the Foreign Corporation would own the LLC, and the buyer would hold shares of stock in the Foreign Corporation. Under this scenario, since the property is “owned” by the Foreign Corporation, the US government would receive nothing upon the death of the Foreign Buyer. This is a great tax savings for Foreign Buyers and is not very expensive to implement. This structure also allows for the easy transfer of the property from one party to another by the selling of shares of the corporation rather than the sale of the property, which might trigger a taxable event. It is advisable for any owner of investment real estate (foreign or US) to create at least an LLC to hold the property, since using this structure limits the owner’s liability to the value of the LLC, which would strategically own only that particular property and, therefore, the owner’s liability would be limited to the net value of the property. Taking this one step further, using a Foreign Corporation to own the LLC would provide protection to the Foreign Buyer against the estate tax.Buying in the name of an Individual vs in the name of an LLC:If a foreign person wishes to purchase the property individually, they can create an irrevocable trust to hold the property. An irrevocable trust will avoid estate tax when the foreign person dies. In addition, a trust can provide similar privacy protections to a corporation.As noted above, owning a property through an LLC or US corporation can provide liability protection and additional privacy to the foreign buyer.Currently, long term capital gains tax rates are 15% for individuals and there is no capital gains treatment for C corporations. Federal corporate tax rates can be as high as 35%. What this means for the foreign buyer is a tax savings on the capital gains on the sale of the property if it is held individually as opposed to a standard corporation. However, these taxes can be avoided, and the foreign person can obtain the Federal capital gains tax rate of 15%, by creating an LLC. LLC’s allow individuals to be taxed at their own individual tax rate, instead of being subject to the high corporate tax rates of 35%. As a result, there is not a significant advantage in tax treatment to a foreign buyer if they own a property individually.While there is not a significant difference in tax treatment between owning the property individually or through an LLC, there is a difference in liability protection. Owning a property individually can subject the foreign buyer to lawsuits in the U.S., whereas, an LLC can protect the foreign buyer’s assets outside those owned by the LLC from liability.Disclaimer:I am not an attorney or a real estate expert. My answer is solely based on information available on public websites. The Answer is not intended to provide legal advice.