PM me if interested in joining potential class action suit v. Neteller

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]

“Income although not actually reduced to a taxpayer's possession is constructively received by him in the taxable year during which it is credited to his account, set apart for him, or otherwise made available so that he may draw upon it at any time, or so that he could have drawn upon it during the taxable year if notice of intention to withdraw had been given.” IRS Regulation 1.451-2(a)


[/ QUOTE ]

OP must have missed the most important phrase in the entire clause.

[JPT III]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

“Income although not actually reduced to a taxpayer's possession is constructively received by him in the taxable year during which it is credited to his account, set apart for him, or otherwise made available so that he may draw upon it at any time, or so that he could have drawn upon it during the taxable year if notice of intention to withdraw had been given.” IRS Regulation 1.451-2(a)


[/ QUOTE ]

OP must have missed the most important phrase in the entire clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you do not mean me, but rather some subsequent poster. ?????

[sports_quant99]

[ QUOTE ]
“Income although not actually reduced to a taxpayer's possession is constructively received by him in the taxable year during which it is credited to his account, set apart for him, or otherwise made available so that he may draw upon it at any time, or so that he could have drawn upon it during the taxable year if notice of intention to withdraw had been given.” IRS Regulation 1.451-2(a)

Well I cant draw on it at any time now can I?

[/ QUOTE ]

But you could have in the past....it became taxable after you won your bet, regardless if you collected it. There's a thread right now where i'll address this in the Poker Legislation forum....in the thread "Money won -- but lost with Neteller: when is it a Tax write -off?"

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once again if you dont mind, which court will you be filing in?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm also an attorney. FYI, to those of you who don't think US courts have jurisdiction over Neteller -- you're dead wrong. OP could file in pretty much any Federal court. Neteller's substantial and continuous contact with US customers establishes jurisdiction.

For Christ's sake, the first thing they teach you in Civil Procedure is the case where an Argentenian helicopter company was successfully sued in Federal court, even though it had no US based offices and did no business with US suppliers. Minimum contacts doctrine ftw.

[/ QUOTE ]

To join the chorus of attorneys in this thread, there is no problem with a court in the U.S. asserting jurisdiction over neteller based on this, even state courts in most states would have jurisdiction.

[The4Aces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once again if you dont mind, which court will you be filing in?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm also an attorney. FYI, to those of you who don't think US courts have jurisdiction over Neteller -- you're dead wrong. OP could file in pretty much any Federal court. Neteller's substantial and continuous contact with US customers establishes jurisdiction.

For Christ's sake, the first thing they teach you in Civil Procedure is the case where an Argentenian helicopter company was successfully sued in Federal court, even though it had no US based offices and did no business with US suppliers. Minimum contacts doctrine ftw.

[/ QUOTE ]

To join the chorus of attorneys in this thread, there is no problem with a court in the U.S. asserting jurisdiction over neteller based on this, even state courts in most states would have jurisdiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure the US has jurisidiction over this case but do they have enforcement to make sure their judgement is carried out?

[JPT III]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once again if you dont mind, which court will you be filing in?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm also an attorney. FYI, to those of you who don't think US courts have jurisdiction over Neteller -- you're dead wrong. OP could file in pretty much any Federal court. Neteller's substantial and continuous contact with US customers establishes jurisdiction.

For Christ's sake, the first thing they teach you in Civil Procedure is the case where an Argentenian helicopter company was successfully sued in Federal court, even though it had no US based offices and did no business with US suppliers. Minimum contacts doctrine ftw.

[/ QUOTE ]

To join the chorus of attorneys in this thread, there is no problem with a court in the U.S. asserting jurisdiction over neteller based on this, even state courts in most states would have jurisdiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure the US has jurisidiction over this case but do they have enforcement to make sure their judgement is carried out?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably. Although I've never done it, enforcing a judgment against Neteller, who's assets are in UK banks, is probable workable.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. There is a lawsuit that must first be won....

[ClevelandWasp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[If you are a lawyer, go on LEXIS or Westlaw right now and see how long it takes you to find a case where a US court had jurisdiction over a non-US company on the basis of the company doing business within the US. It won't take you long. Remember, in your first year of law school, studying something called the "minimum contacts doctrine" in Civil Procedure?

[/ QUOTE ]

"International Shoe" FTW!!!!!!!!!!

BTW, lol @ the gaggle of college dropouts in this thread attempting to drop their knowledge about federal jursidiction & class action suits based based on the half-episode of Ally McBeal their girlfriend made them sit through.

If you want to be included in the potential suit, contact OP, if not, resume your former hysterics.



[/ QUOTE ]

Damn you beat me to the International Shoe thing. I have to explain this stuff to clients all the time because they sign contracts with forum selection clauses. When are they opening the 2+2 lawyers' forum so we can discuss things like purposeful availment?

Naturally I want in on the class action. I lost $750 and I want my check for $.47. If only we could still file in some random state court in rural West Virgina. Stupid CAFTA! Thanks again, Republicans!!

[Homer]

Why are people with no legal background flaming OP?

[train.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

“Income although not actually reduced to a taxpayer's possession is constructively received by him in the taxable year during which it is credited to his account, set apart for him, or otherwise made available so that he may draw upon it at any time, or so that he could have drawn upon it during the taxable year if notice of intention to withdraw had been given.” IRS Regulation 1.451-2(a)


[/ QUOTE ]

OP must have missed the most important phrase in the entire clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

why did you stop the bolding before or so that he could have drawn upon it during the taxable year if notice of intention to withdraw had been given.

[kioshk]

I've got no class, but I've got a suit. And God knows, I like a little action.


I'm in!