U.S.: You can buy all the healthcare you can afford. If you're poor, you're SOL.
Canada: It is illegal for you to buy healthcare that the government says it provides "for free" even though the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Whether rich (unless you leave the country) or poor, you'll wait forever and this are also SOL.
Some might argue that Canada is less oppressive than the U.S. However, this is a detail of timing only. The reason that the Supreme Court can be effectively rendered impotent is the "Notwithstanding Clause" of the Canadian constitution that lets federal and provincial governments pass law overriding the decisions of the court.
I was going to post this very thought, but being a little more generous regarding the "sizzle" aspect.
I purchased a B&O 5500 stereo system around 1986 for the living room of my first apartment. Complete with Carver Silver Edition Amazing Loudspeakers, and a Carver amp, the whole kit'n'kaboodle ran around CA$10k or around US$8.5k. A 30" Sony XBR TV rounded things out -- call it US$10k in 1986 dollars.
Yes, I could have purchased stereo equipment for half the price that would have sounded as good. But, I was willing to spend 30-50% of my budget on "style" (rounding out the custom stereo cabinet I had made, with shock-mounted granite inlays on the top to isolate the equipment, leather furniture, brushed alumuinum blinds to match the B&O look, designer glass tables, and designer halogen lighting).
Damn, it was a fine pad!
The point is, if it shows, it should look good, and that is worth some money.
I agree that the horsepower should be tucked away in a server closet with entertainment thin clients in the living/family room. But, those clients should (a) look good, and (b) be absolutely silent.
There are legal issues regarding "adventures in trade": you may need a license, you may have to collect sales taxes, etc.
Others have pointed all this out, in addition to certain advantages that businesses have over individuals when it comes to taxation: expenses can be deducted from revenue, and capital expenditures can be depreciated. How to do this correctly requires the advice of an accountant and lawyer.
But, the number one thing you should remember is that you have to pay your taxes on the income you earn (and this includes self-employment tax) whether or not your business is 'legit', that is duely licensed, collecting and remiting sales taxes, etc.
I once suggested this, at least for new code, at a former employer in Canada, was backed up by all other devs who would have to use it, and got the ideas shot down by our boss because he could not see the value in it over the cost of learning a new way to annotate code to be doxygen-friendly.
No, clearly they are referring to a base for a shipping containers. See, Japanese pallets are smaller than American ones, and the XBox boxes don't fit on them quite right, so the Japanese, looking at how that would mess up their JIT delivery systems, said, quite rightly, "it isn't worth the hassle".
I should have noted in my parent post that it is not to be construed as tax or financial advice. Consult an appropriate professional for your particular case.
"Yeah, because the US tax laws are a paragon of fairness, transparency, and virtue."
While the U.S. tax code might be rather baroque, my individual experience with the IRS has been far better than any experience I had with Revenue Quebec -- and I've had hideously complex tax returns sometimes requiring the services of a tax accountant at a cost of $700 to file 1 inch thick returns.
Before y'all scream "See, I told you so!" note that the complexity was of my doing: Moving expenses are handled differently in the U.S. than Canada, and when I returned to the U.S. after working for a Canadian employer that had paid my relo expenses and required two years employment or a refund of a prorated portion of those expenses, I used complex tax treaties to make them deductible against U.S. taxes in the year I refunded them.
In Canada, moving expenses are neither a taxable benefit when reimbursed, nor a deduction when not. But, the situation in the U.S. is different: reimbursed moving expenses (for purposes of employment, satisfying the time and distance tests) are taxable, but are also deductible to the extent they were used to pay for elegible moving expenses related to employment. The practical upshot is that if you pay net moving expenses related to a new job, you can claim them as an itemized deduction against income in the year you move, or the year you pay them. Refunding reimbursed moving expenses makes them deductible in the year you refund them -- if you are subject to U.S. taxes during the period of employment.
For a U.S. citizen, this is trivial: they are always taxed on worldwide income, regardless of where they reside, though there is a blanket $US70k exemption for periods of residency outside the U.S. exceeding one calendar year. But, I am a Canadian, not U.S. citizen, and failed to meet the U.S. Tax residency test when i was in Canada.
This is where the tax treaties come in.
The Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty basically means that a Canadian, in the U.S., can't be taxed more than an American in similar circumstances. It also says that a Canadian can not be subject to greater U.S. taxes than a different foreigner under similar circumstances. This is where the U.S.-Germany Tax Treaty comes in: A German can't be taxed worse, anywhere in the world than an American in similar circumstances. So, a German, in Canada, can't be subject to greater U.S. taxes than an American in Canada would, and thus a Canadian, in Canada, can't be subject to greater U.S. taxes than that German, or an American.
The practical upshot is that a Canadian, in Canada, can elect to subject themselves to U.S. taxation as if they were an American in Canada. Generally, there is little benefit to do this, because all you'd do is use the FEIE to excempt the first US$70k (or is it $80k now?) of employment income, and/or use the FTC to offset U.S. tax owing by Canadian tax paid (which will likely be higher), yielding the same result as not subjecting one's self to U.S. taxes in the first place: there are few U.S. refundable tax credits. (One is the child tax credit, which, by treaty, is not taxable in Canada, because it is not taxable in the U.S. so Canadians with kids can pull a fast one on Uncle Sam if they have a good tax accountant).
Sometimes, however, if you have U.S. source income (you just got a NAFTA visa), it can pay to ammend one's U.S. return for prior years in Canada, and subject one's self to U.S. tax for them (which should be a wash, as noted above) in order to get current benefits relating to the earning of that prior-years income, i.e. a deduction for the moving expenses paid to return to Canada to earn it.
Of course, if you do this, you have to declare all foreign source income. That means gains on the sale of Canadian property (which might be exempt, but gains on the discharge of a foreign mortgage with cheaper U.S. dollars than when the mortgage was written aren't), bank interest, etc. You also get to deduct mortgage interest,
And don't forget the income surtax: the various provinces and the feds tax the income tax you pay over a certain amount in a progressive fashion. Most places it's 5% of the first $5000 tax over $5000, and 10% of the rest, or something like that.
Sheesh, I'm glad I'm in the U.S. AND I can file jointly with my wife (who doesn't have earned income).
There used to be a text porn program for the Apple ][ (gotta write it that way, just gotta!) that slowly displayed parts of a raunchy novel on the screen.
As the stepper motor movement and overstepping attempts on the floppy drive were quite audible, this was made use of in various sound "effects" that accompanied the display of said raunchy text.
It was not exactly good for the drives: loss of the ability to read one's floppies lends a whole new meaning to "going blind".
GST (a VAT equiv.) in Canada and QST in Quebec round UP. Always.
So, 7% GST on a $1 purchase, yields $1.07. On a $1.01 purchase, yields $1.09 ($1.01 + $0.0707 rounded to $0.08 = $1.09).
It used to be that Quebec added their 8% PST not on the amount excluding GST, but the amount including GST, rounded up of course, and it too was rounded. So $1.01 + 7% GST = $1.09. $1.09 + 8% PST = $1.18. Dunno if they replaced that with the 15% "harmonized" sales tax (paid to the Feds and then partially reimbursed to the province to be equivalent to the combination of 7% GST and average provincial 8% PST -- apparently Quebec was the only province to calculate their PST on top of the GST), but I doubt it.
Woe to the bartender who serves me a Guinness in anything other than a full Imperial pint glass. (This may allow for a modest amount of head of beer as arises when poured in the usual fashion from the tap: The Brittish courts have ruled that the head on a glass of beer is, indeed, beer.)
That means 20 fluid ounces.
I will accept a 16 fl. oz. serving of the American counterpart (I rather like Pyramid IPA (recently renamed "Thunderhead"), Red Hook IPA (a.k.a Ballard Bitter) and Sierra Nevada Pale Ale, as well as Samuel Adams Double Bock, depending on mood -- no "Miller", "Bud", or "Coors" shall ever pass my lips -- when I prefer an Ale to a Stout).
As for Pilsner, there is only one Urquell (damn shame that bottles are usually skunked by the time they reach the U.S. west coast).
Last time I was in Britian, I fancied having the perfect Black & Tan at the closest pub to the half-way point between Burton and Dublin, but never managed it. Just as well as it's a bit of abomination of both.
I've intentionally avoided getting one for the longest time.
But, my wife (and recently 12 year old daughter) have been bugging me for so long, that I finally caved:
LG camera phones for them and a Moto 851 (with Bluetooth earbud package) for me for XMas. 1400 Family Shared Verizon (I get a great price via employer) minutes. Shhh!:-) (They don't read/.)
Make a complaint with the labor board for 1/2 days wages and get treble damages. Duh...
Hmm, $50/hour * 4 hours * 3 = $600.00.
Still not worth it.
Besides, the labor board in most places does not deal with salaried employees, only hourly employees. In many instances they only fight for minimum wages to be paid. They would've told me that (a) I've probably got a good case, but (b) to hire a lawyer... which would likely cost far more than $600.
Not worth it from an economic standpoint, and not worth it from a career standpoint, either.
I suppose one could argue that it would be worth it in order to punish the asshat employer, so others might not get so mistreated in the future, but those "others", if they were any good, could do what I did and leave for a better job -- the turnover being punishment enough for the employer. Furthermore, without (a) the chance for significant punitive damages against the employer, and (b) economic protection for me in exchange for my testimony (which alone could be argued to taint it), the risk to me was not warranted.
Now, if I had been fired for taking the afternoon off after working the previous day, all through the night, and the current morning, it might've been a different issue. But even then, suing a (former) employer is not good for future employment chances: employers and employees see the same situation differently, and an employee with a reputation for being "sue-happy" is not one any employer wants.
It's enough that I've had fun jobs, as well as jobs from hell, with the former outnumbering the latter by a healty margin.
A history of suing one's employer does not generally bode well for future employment opportunities.
I just started looking for another job after that incident, and soon found one.
Besides, what would I sue for? A half day's wages? It wouldn't be worth the hassle. I suppose I could claim that I was being treated as an hourly and not salaried employee, and thus claim all prior overtime be paid, but at what rate? Certainly not my salaried rate, since I was not constructivly salaried.
It was easier to just find a better place to work.
I once worked all night after working a normal day (as in arrive at 8:45 AM Tuesday, and work through to 12:00 noon wednesday) to deal with a crisis not of my making.
Got docked 1/2 day pay for leaving at noon on Wednesday (no I didn't get paid overtime for Monday).
I didn't stay there long...
The argument was, while I *was* salaried, I did not pre-arrange the time off on Wednesday, so it was considered unpaid vacation.
I had observed that when others asked for clarification, the inspector merely repeated the question louder, and showed irritation at having to do so. In my case the inspector never even acknowledged that his English was poor. He had a heavy accent as well. Such communication barriers don't usually bother me too much, but the stakes were high here. I don't know whether he really had such a poor command of English (how could he get the job?), or was simply trying to create a stressful situation to see if I would trip over my own words, as I might if I were trying to lie or hide something.
Not all INS inspectors I encountered had such a poor command of English, mind you, but the bunch at this particular border crossing (Buffalo, NY / Windsor, ON IIRC) generally seamed to. I fared much better when I "did the loop" at Blaine, WA., or at previous inspections at the airport POE in Dorval, QC.
Or how about you try and be a little less literal next time?
You haven't ever dealt with a U.S. INS officer (being a foreigner), have you? They have great discretionary powers.
How would you answer the question, "How long live you U.S.?" in similar circumstances (having been there legally at one time, but not currently) knowing that lying would get you arrested?
How can they not? They either have a clean record of crimes committed, or an unclean one, but they can't not have one in the same way that they can't not be somewhere. Damnit moron, ask the right questions!
It's rather like the time I went to the U.S. immigration office just insude the Canada/U.S border from my TN1 interview. The immigration officer asked me, "How long live you U.S.?"
WTF is that supposed to mean? (Note: lying to a U.S. immigration officer is a felony). How long have I been living in the U.S. up to this point (which would have been illegal)? How long have I ever lived in the U.S. in the past (legally or otherwise)? What was the longest contiguous interval during which I lived in the U.S. in the past? How long did I intend to live in the U.S.? Strictly speaking, TN1 holders can be present in the U.S. for up to one year, but live in Canada, are non-residents immigration wise, but can be residents tax-wise. Lying to the IRS is also a crime, so one has to tell immigration that they are non-residents, the IRS that they are residents (if they've been in the U.S. for more than 180 days or otherwise meet a substantial presence test), and answering either one incorrectly can get one jailed or deported. The safest legal thing would be to answer "I don't know," or "I don't understand," but then you look like either a fool, smartass, or idiot.
In the end, I answered, "I do not currently live in the U.S. as that would be illegal. I have previously been present legally in the U.S. between such and such dates. I lived in the U.S. temporarily while on an H1B visa. If my TN1 visa is approved, I can be present in the U.S. for up to one year so long as I remain employed by the petitioner."
Basically, I tried to answer all possible interpretations of the question with as few words as possible. It was a bit nerve-racking.
Another fellow looked visably shaken as he was being yelled at to "Pay that man $110!". $110 was the amount of the processing fee, but the way the order was issued, it was not clear whether he was being tested to see if he would profer a bribe, and should therefore refuse, or if he was being directed to the cachier.
I've had better INS experiences "doing the loop" at Blaine, WA, when I exited on a TN1 visa and reentered to get an H1B. It helped to have all my paperwork in order, and then some: I had to renew my passport after getting the TN1, so the new one didn't show the TN1 stamp and the immigration officer, not seeing a TN1 stamp in my recent passport quizzed me if I still had the old one (I did, properly cancelled, but still showing the TN1 stamp). The process was a lot more formal, with signigicant paperwork to check, but the INS officer at least spoke proper English, and appeared to appreciate my preparedness: The INS immigration checkpoints often like to keep copies of documents but individual INS officers sometimes hate to have to take the time to make them, so I always keep a set of copies just for that purpose. The odd thing is that they appreciate that I had copies to save them time, but copy the originals anyway (just so there is no discrepancy, obviously).
Slashdot Mirror
Canada joins such wonderful nations like Cuba and North Korea in this regard.
U.S.: You can buy all the healthcare you can afford. If you're poor, you're SOL.
Canada: It is illegal for you to buy healthcare that the government says it provides "for free" even though the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Whether rich (unless you leave the country) or poor, you'll wait forever and this are also SOL.
Some might argue that Canada is less oppressive than the U.S. However, this is a detail of timing only. The reason that the Supreme Court can be effectively rendered impotent is the "Notwithstanding Clause" of the Canadian constitution that lets federal and provincial governments pass law overriding the decisions of the court.
I purchased a B&O 5500 stereo system around 1986 for the living room of my first apartment. Complete with Carver Silver Edition Amazing Loudspeakers, and a Carver amp, the whole kit'n'kaboodle ran around CA$10k or around US$8.5k. A 30" Sony XBR TV rounded things out -- call it US$10k in 1986 dollars.
Yes, I could have purchased stereo equipment for half the price that would have sounded as good. But, I was willing to spend 30-50% of my budget on "style" (rounding out the custom stereo cabinet I had made, with shock-mounted granite inlays on the top to isolate the equipment, leather furniture, brushed alumuinum blinds to match the B&O look, designer glass tables, and designer halogen lighting).
Damn, it was a fine pad!
The point is, if it shows, it should look good, and that is worth some money.
I agree that the horsepower should be tucked away in a server closet with entertainment thin clients in the living/family room. But, those clients should (a) look good, and (b) be absolutely silent.
Noted, but proper flash filesystems can address this by relocating rewritten blocks on the device.
Though, it was amusing to think about a swap-to-flash web server getting a good ole' slashdotting, and burning up... literally.
Beats swapping over the 'net to NFS...
Others have pointed all this out, in addition to certain advantages that businesses have over individuals when it comes to taxation: expenses can be deducted from revenue, and capital expenditures can be depreciated. How to do this correctly requires the advice of an accountant and lawyer.
But, the number one thing you should remember is that you have to pay your taxes on the income you earn (and this includes self-employment tax) whether or not your business is 'legit', that is duely licensed, collecting and remiting sales taxes, etc.
I once suggested this, at least for new code, at a former employer in Canada, was backed up by all other devs who would have to use it, and got the ideas shot down by our boss because he could not see the value in it over the cost of learning a new way to annotate code to be doxygen-friendly.
Sigh.
I didn't stay there very long.
No, clearly they are referring to a base for a shipping containers. See, Japanese pallets are smaller than American ones, and the XBox boxes don't fit on them quite right, so the Japanese, looking at how that would mess up their JIT delivery systems, said, quite rightly, "it isn't worth the hassle".
I should have noted in my parent post that it is not to be construed as tax or financial advice. Consult an appropriate professional for your particular case.
While the U.S. tax code might be rather baroque, my individual experience with the IRS has been far better than any experience I had with Revenue Quebec -- and I've had hideously complex tax returns sometimes requiring the services of a tax accountant at a cost of $700 to file 1 inch thick returns.
Before y'all scream "See, I told you so!" note that the complexity was of my doing: Moving expenses are handled differently in the U.S. than Canada, and when I returned to the U.S. after working for a Canadian employer that had paid my relo expenses and required two years employment or a refund of a prorated portion of those expenses, I used complex tax treaties to make them deductible against U.S. taxes in the year I refunded them.
In Canada, moving expenses are neither a taxable benefit when reimbursed, nor a deduction when not. But, the situation in the U.S. is different: reimbursed moving expenses (for purposes of employment, satisfying the time and distance tests) are taxable, but are also deductible to the extent they were used to pay for elegible moving expenses related to employment. The practical upshot is that if you pay net moving expenses related to a new job, you can claim them as an itemized deduction against income in the year you move, or the year you pay them. Refunding reimbursed moving expenses makes them deductible in the year you refund them -- if you are subject to U.S. taxes during the period of employment.
For a U.S. citizen, this is trivial: they are always taxed on worldwide income, regardless of where they reside, though there is a blanket $US70k exemption for periods of residency outside the U.S. exceeding one calendar year. But, I am a Canadian, not U.S. citizen, and failed to meet the U.S. Tax residency test when i was in Canada.
This is where the tax treaties come in.
The Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty basically means that a Canadian, in the U.S., can't be taxed more than an American in similar circumstances. It also says that a Canadian can not be subject to greater U.S. taxes than a different foreigner under similar circumstances. This is where the U.S.-Germany Tax Treaty comes in: A German can't be taxed worse, anywhere in the world than an American in similar circumstances. So, a German, in Canada, can't be subject to greater U.S. taxes than an American in Canada would, and thus a Canadian, in Canada, can't be subject to greater U.S. taxes than that German, or an American.
The practical upshot is that a Canadian, in Canada, can elect to subject themselves to U.S. taxation as if they were an American in Canada. Generally, there is little benefit to do this, because all you'd do is use the FEIE to excempt the first US$70k (or is it $80k now?) of employment income, and/or use the FTC to offset U.S. tax owing by Canadian tax paid (which will likely be higher), yielding the same result as not subjecting one's self to U.S. taxes in the first place: there are few U.S. refundable tax credits. (One is the child tax credit, which, by treaty, is not taxable in Canada, because it is not taxable in the U.S. so Canadians with kids can pull a fast one on Uncle Sam if they have a good tax accountant).
Sometimes, however, if you have U.S. source income (you just got a NAFTA visa), it can pay to ammend one's U.S. return for prior years in Canada, and subject one's self to U.S. tax for them (which should be a wash, as noted above) in order to get current benefits relating to the earning of that prior-years income, i.e. a deduction for the moving expenses paid to return to Canada to earn it.
Of course, if you do this, you have to declare all foreign source income. That means gains on the sale of Canadian property (which might be exempt, but gains on the discharge of a foreign mortgage with cheaper U.S. dollars than when the mortgage was written aren't), bank interest, etc. You also get to deduct mortgage interest,
Sheesh, I'm glad I'm in the U.S. AND I can file jointly with my wife (who doesn't have earned income).
As the stepper motor movement and overstepping attempts on the floppy drive were quite audible, this was made use of in various sound "effects" that accompanied the display of said raunchy text.
It was not exactly good for the drives: loss of the ability to read one's floppies lends a whole new meaning to "going blind".
So, 7% GST on a $1 purchase, yields $1.07. On a $1.01 purchase, yields $1.09 ($1.01 + $0.0707 rounded to $0.08 = $1.09).
It used to be that Quebec added their 8% PST not on the amount excluding GST, but the amount including GST, rounded up of course, and it too was rounded. So $1.01 + 7% GST = $1.09. $1.09 + 8% PST = $1.18. Dunno if they replaced that with the 15% "harmonized" sales tax (paid to the Feds and then partially reimbursed to the province to be equivalent to the combination of 7% GST and average provincial 8% PST -- apparently Quebec was the only province to calculate their PST on top of the GST), but I doubt it.
It's not all that bad, but really lacks in body -- it tasted like a light dark ale (if there can be such a thing) to me.
I think I'll go back to my I.P.A.s.
Guinness doesn't travel well. That said, you can get a decent pint at the Downpatrick in downtown Whitby, ON, Canada.
Well, they don't carry every Unibroue product, but they do carry La Maudite which I enjoy from time to time.
I spell my whisky "The Macallan".
That means 20 fluid ounces.
I will accept a 16 fl. oz. serving of the American counterpart (I rather like Pyramid IPA (recently renamed "Thunderhead"), Red Hook IPA (a.k.a Ballard Bitter) and Sierra Nevada Pale Ale, as well as Samuel Adams Double Bock, depending on mood -- no "Miller", "Bud", or "Coors" shall ever pass my lips -- when I prefer an Ale to a Stout).
As for Pilsner, there is only one Urquell (damn shame that bottles are usually skunked by the time they reach the U.S. west coast).
Last time I was in Britian, I fancied having the perfect Black & Tan at the closest pub to the half-way point between Burton and Dublin, but never managed it. Just as well as it's a bit of abomination of both.
But, my wife (and recently 12 year old daughter) have been bugging me for so long, that I finally caved:
LG camera phones for them and a Moto 851 (with Bluetooth earbud package) for me for XMas. 1400 Family Shared Verizon (I get a great price via employer) minutes. Shhh! :-) (They don't read /.)
Hmm, $50/hour * 4 hours * 3 = $600.00.
Still not worth it.
Besides, the labor board in most places does not deal with salaried employees, only hourly employees. In many instances they only fight for minimum wages to be paid. They would've told me that (a) I've probably got a good case, but (b) to hire a lawyer... which would likely cost far more than $600.
Not worth it from an economic standpoint, and not worth it from a career standpoint, either.
I suppose one could argue that it would be worth it in order to punish the asshat employer, so others might not get so mistreated in the future, but those "others", if they were any good, could do what I did and leave for a better job -- the turnover being punishment enough for the employer. Furthermore, without (a) the chance for significant punitive damages against the employer, and (b) economic protection for me in exchange for my testimony (which alone could be argued to taint it), the risk to me was not warranted.
Now, if I had been fired for taking the afternoon off after working the previous day, all through the night, and the current morning, it might've been a different issue. But even then, suing a (former) employer is not good for future employment chances: employers and employees see the same situation differently, and an employee with a reputation for being "sue-happy" is not one any employer wants.
It's enough that I've had fun jobs, as well as jobs from hell, with the former outnumbering the latter by a healty margin.
I just started looking for another job after that incident, and soon found one.
Besides, what would I sue for? A half day's wages? It wouldn't be worth the hassle. I suppose I could claim that I was being treated as an hourly and not salaried employee, and thus claim all prior overtime be paid, but at what rate? Certainly not my salaried rate, since I was not constructivly salaried.
It was easier to just find a better place to work.
Got docked 1/2 day pay for leaving at noon on Wednesday (no I didn't get paid overtime for Monday).
I didn't stay there long...
The argument was, while I *was* salaried, I did not pre-arrange the time off on Wednesday, so it was considered unpaid vacation.
Not all INS inspectors I encountered had such a poor command of English, mind you, but the bunch at this particular border crossing (Buffalo, NY / Windsor, ON IIRC) generally seamed to. I fared much better when I "did the loop" at Blaine, WA., or at previous inspections at the airport POE in Dorval, QC.
You haven't ever dealt with a U.S. INS officer (being a foreigner), have you? They have great discretionary powers.
How would you answer the question, "How long live you U.S.?" in similar circumstances (having been there legally at one time, but not currently) knowing that lying would get you arrested?
Yes.
You can't enter, then.
Why?
Because you have a criminal record.
So, why can they enter?
Because they don't.
How can they not? They either have a clean record of crimes committed, or an unclean one, but they can't not have one in the same way that they can't not be somewhere. Damnit moron, ask the right questions!
It's rather like the time I went to the U.S. immigration office just insude the Canada/U.S border from my TN1 interview. The immigration officer asked me, "How long live you U.S.?"
WTF is that supposed to mean? (Note: lying to a U.S. immigration officer is a felony). How long have I been living in the U.S. up to this point (which would have been illegal)? How long have I ever lived in the U.S. in the past (legally or otherwise)? What was the longest contiguous interval during which I lived in the U.S. in the past? How long did I intend to live in the U.S.? Strictly speaking, TN1 holders can be present in the U.S. for up to one year, but live in Canada, are non-residents immigration wise, but can be residents tax-wise. Lying to the IRS is also a crime, so one has to tell immigration that they are non-residents, the IRS that they are residents (if they've been in the U.S. for more than 180 days or otherwise meet a substantial presence test), and answering either one incorrectly can get one jailed or deported. The safest legal thing would be to answer "I don't know," or "I don't understand," but then you look like either a fool, smartass, or idiot.
In the end, I answered, "I do not currently live in the U.S. as that would be illegal. I have previously been present legally in the U.S. between such and such dates. I lived in the U.S. temporarily while on an H1B visa. If my TN1 visa is approved, I can be present in the U.S. for up to one year so long as I remain employed by the petitioner."
Basically, I tried to answer all possible interpretations of the question with as few words as possible. It was a bit nerve-racking.
Another fellow looked visably shaken as he was being yelled at to "Pay that man $110!". $110 was the amount of the processing fee, but the way the order was issued, it was not clear whether he was being tested to see if he would profer a bribe, and should therefore refuse, or if he was being directed to the cachier.
I've had better INS experiences "doing the loop" at Blaine, WA, when I exited on a TN1 visa and reentered to get an H1B. It helped to have all my paperwork in order, and then some: I had to renew my passport after getting the TN1, so the new one didn't show the TN1 stamp and the immigration officer, not seeing a TN1 stamp in my recent passport quizzed me if I still had the old one (I did, properly cancelled, but still showing the TN1 stamp). The process was a lot more formal, with signigicant paperwork to check, but the INS officer at least spoke proper English, and appeared to appreciate my preparedness: The INS immigration checkpoints often like to keep copies of documents but individual INS officers sometimes hate to have to take the time to make them, so I always keep a set of copies just for that purpose. The odd thing is that they appreciate that I had copies to save them time, but copy the originals anyway (just so there is no discrepancy, obviously).