Get And Sign W8 Form No Download Needed 2010-2021

Payoff.com is a social finance platform enabling communities to fulfill their individual and collective dreams. We launched public beta in January 2011 and have collected 1,000+ dreams, of which over 90% are related to money. Payoff helps people fund their dreams and signNow their goals, like saving for a house or vacation, adopting a child, paying off credit cards, and starting a business, in addition to connecting them with other people working towards the same things. The current product enables users to share their dreams, set up goals, link and track financial accounts, earn badges, and receive cash Sur-Prizes for progress. We provide tools from top-quality partners, as well as educational content to help move users to action and success. Ultimately, we provide a more intuitive way for users to understand how they are spending their life -- it’s not about the dollars, but it’s about the positive use of money, time, talent, and charity. We aim to own dreams and achievement on the web.  Payoff will create meaningful social connections and dialogue through dreams, goals, implicit communities based on personal transactions (the “real-life check-in”), and our partners.  In addition, our relevance and recommendation engine is guided by a Science Advisory Board, with leaders from Cal-Tech, USC, and Northwestern. We recognize that achievement and financial behavior, like most decisions, is driven by emotions, not budgets and lists, and we are signNowing people in this emotional space. One user told us, “I feel more encouragement from these badges than I think you will ever know.  I'm not the most emotional person but I have been so poor for most of my adult life trying to get through school that the day  [the] "STASH" badge was awarded to me I cried!” Payoff is founded by Scott Saunders (Walz Group, Inc 500) and Eden Warner (pre-revenue to profitability CFO at Fandango), along with folks from Yahoo! and SpotRunner. You can view a video about us at and contact us at scott@payoff.com. Also, check out what folks are saying: AOL WalletPop: http://www.walletpop.com/2011/01...Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/p...U.S. News Money: http://money.usnews.com/money/bl...

A major reason: identity politics and political correctness gone too far.At least here in deep-blue Seattle, a city I love, the amount of guilt-penance being dished out by schools and in media is starting to overflow beyond the bounds of common sense. And I think educators are largely unaware that with a heavyhanded approach to discussing inclusion and diversity, they risk unintentionally minting new conservatives. Of the teens I know, many are starting to question the dogma.What’s the dogma? It’s that “Oppression and/or access-denied-by-others explains all observed social outcome discrepancies.”And this dogma, mind you, cannot be openly challenged without risking major social and academic repercussion. Teens who might want to introduce or explore additional discrepancy-explainers, such as personal responsibility, culture and agency will feel silenced. To diversity directors and administrators I want to shout that it need not be mutually exclusive: discrepancies can and nearly always do have multiple explainers. But some of these possible explainers are uncomfortable to voice and explore, certainly for young preteens and teens.This “silencing” not being simpatico with the typical teen desire to process thoughts and express and assert independence, “the rest of the story” gets sublimated, and many once-liberal students retreat to online venues to process what they feel intuitively must be the “rest of the story.”Very unfortunately, and not just for the student but for those of us who want to mint more allies in seeing social progress — the conservative blogosphere is also teeming with an ample share of racist, xenophobic, homophobic, hateful memes, and conspiracy-theory-promoting jerks. So by silencing the second half of the conversation about personal agency — whether it’s #MeToo or women in STEM or disparities in academic achievement between the races, it’s actually pushing the discussion and exploration elsewhere, and that elsewhere has equally little nuance, but in the other direction.Writ large in America — and not just as schools — across politics, news, media, social media and entertainment — we are allowed to digitally opt into the worldviews we agree with and opt out of the ones that challenge our worldview. I wish I could express just how counter-productive and misguided I think these last ten years or so of confrontational, guilt-oriented discussion has been to the very important and vital goals of an inclusive, socially aware civil society, while shutting down discussion about agency and choice, as though that undermines the argument about lack of access and oppression.We have eradicated nuance, but we tell ourselves we’re open to all viewpoints and datapoints. We way overemphasize inalterable identity attributes. Too often, “Speaking as a…” is given far more validity than the overall data itself. It erects an unassailable defense, where any challenge is interpreted as an insult.I really wish we could return to the days of Martin Luther King’s urging us all to judge not people by the color of their skin but the content of their character, but the progressive left will only allow one’s inalterable identity attributes (gender, race, sexual preference) to be front and foremost.Further, since teens aren’t generally socially permitted to say out loud some very uncomfortable, messy notions they might still want to process (examples below*), there’s zero open challenge to these messy thoughts being aired, and very little truly sincere discussion actually exists about controversial issues, though administrators will assure you sincere debate exists. To many of them, this means a heavy emphasis on oppression/lack-of-access-based-explainers, but very little consideration of volition-based explainers for any inequities in society.Worse, kids who are wearing the invisible “oppressor” t-shirt look around and see all kinds of other kids getting celebrated for bringing their whole person to school, and lots of extra-mile work being done to open doors. But generally, a “you’ll be just fine, believe me” attitude is what you’ll receive if you dare raise any of your own offense or hurt feelings, leading immediately to a feeling of unfairness.For example, let’s say we observe a social injustice — a discrepancy of some kind (e.g., female/male pay gap, female representation in STEM, income inequality between races, academic achievement gap between races or sexes, etc.) I can assure you that schools will rightly devote extensive, ample exploration about what kinds of oppression and/or lack of access contributed to the problem, and how students can help work in their communities to right it. OK, that’s fantastic, it’s important, and needed.But notably absent from these discussions are any exploration of factors involving personal volition, personal responsibility, work, choice, and cultural values which might also help explain, and which also take just a little of the burden off the “oppressors” in the room.The furor over the Damore memo (“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber”) is a case in point — if you actually read it, it’s saying women too have agency, and several psychological studies do actually show that women and men do differ biologically on several dimensions, including personal interest. It is also repeatedly stating that “on average” does not mean “all” and that differences abound. But he was summarily fired, and the memo mischaracterized. It is worth asking whether this type of atmosphere for ideas which challenge is equally welcoming.Though I’ve only had second-hand observation, in speaking with some teens in an open-ended way, I’d have to say that the “Oppression explains virtually all observed discrepancies in outcomes” is a fairly consistent lens through which all social issues are explored at school (or at least the sentiment outcome desired), and anyone who raises other points which may in any way challenge the hegemony of this worldview can be quickly be portrayed as racist, misogynistic, insensitive or otherwise hateful, with little adult intervention, defense or scaffolding.Particularly for the millions of white male kids coming of age after around 9/11, it can grow tiring — and it is far different from the aspirational, we-can-all-win, we’re all on the same team style-vision of instilled in those of us raised with Martin Luther King style “content of their character” mores, vision and goals when I came of age in the 70’s and 80’s. What would you do after years of this type of discussion? Try to keep your chin up. Remember that you’ve got integrity and will do the right thing anyway. In discussions, you’ll play along. You’ll sit on those uncomfortable ideas which round out the story, and perhaps not bring your full self and very valid opinions to school discussion.Sadly, in today’s world, you’re either the oppressed or the oppressor, and worse, you don’t even get to choose the side; the t-shirts have already been printed and handed out, the very moment the discussion was framed through an inalterable-identity way.Speaking of diversity, doesn’t political diversity make us stronger too?It’d be very surprising to me if any of my kids’ schools (fine schools academically, but each handling social justice with very different degrees of nuance and resultant quality) have ever had a single right-of-center general assembly speaker who might actually introduce ideas from a conservative lens. But I do know they’ve each had several left-of-center speakers which explore racism, misogyny and other victim-centric approaches, which make it amply clear where the problem lies, even if it’s couched in terms of “we all need to work on this oppression”.If you’re a white male, especially one of privilege, there’s no question who’s got the target on their back, even if you have been (and would have continued to be) a solid would-be ally. In the current academic paradigm, you’re generally made to feel as either the oppressed or the oppressor, and that’s a shame — this heavy-handed approach is alienating potential allies.If you know in your heart that you’re not an oppressor, after a few years of this in junior high and high school, it’d be natural for many teens to hop off the rails of ostensibly “open” dialogue into their respective online echo chambers, and technology is only too happy to oblige with a simple “follow” or “unfollow.”It all starts out well enough.For the first several grades, childhood can be full of optimism, celebration of individuality and largely well-executed “you can do anything” opportunity messaging. Of course we ought to treat people the way we wish to be treated. Of course we ought to give those who haven’t had as much opportunity a leg-up. Of course it’s offensive and inaccurate to make broad-brush statements about a person simply because of their race, gender, religion, sexual preference, physical traits or what-have-you. These common-sense principles all line up with the Golden Rule. It is an upbeat, inspirational message that lets people know that they can be the sum of their actions and choices. Awesome. We’re all on the same page.But for kids born in the late 90’s through today, the messaging they’ve heard beginning around ten started to change dramatically. If you’re a white kid of privilege, especially if you’re male, you hear all kinds of reasons why you’re in the doghouse. After years of being raised with the common sense guidelines of treating others the way you wish to be treated, you start hearing the clear and often oddly proud proclamations treating your identity group and therefore you with negative prejudgment. (Hey, heard or read many good things about “white males” or “whiteness” lately? You’re ten. Eleven. Twelve. Thirteen. How are you hearing that? When you run across Buzzfeed’s “37 Things White People Ruined in 2017,” or any one of dozens of such articles from The Root, Salon, or Vox what’s your reaction likely to be?)The implicit message devolves to “Hey sure, it’s very important for you to continue to treat people solely based on their actions and words and never their unalterable attributes because that would be unfair and offensive, but when others don’t do the same for you, well, they’re doing the right thing for them, and that’s OK because you’re in this particular identity group, even though you too didn’t choose it for yourself. Look. You’ll be fine; I’ll get my tiny violin.”Believe me, that screaming hypocrisy is not lost on many young teens.Eventually, as kids grow into adolescence, many kids who are breezily lumped into identity groups to say something negative or claim currency or name as historical oppressors or abusers-in-waiting might rationally begin to consider the notion that maybe they don’t actually bear personal responsibility for slavery, that maybe they’re not all born Harvey Weinstein wannbe’s, that maybe the burritos they enjoy aren’t harmful “cultural appropriation”, and that maybe Martin Luther King Jr. was right after all when he said that we should not judge people by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. The heavy-handed approach of an overly progressive left is alienating potential allies.Related, the progressive left has become a real downer, hasn’t it? Who wants to indulge in that all day? We’re ruining our planet, we’re oppressing everyone, we’re to blame for everything. It’s simply loaded on too thick for many budding teens. It decidedly lacks a positive vision of equal or greater weight to counterbalance the many negative themes. Why? Because perhaps unification is not the goal — only a little more thought will reveal that unification is in fact not possible with identity politics. These concepts — unification and identity politics — are antithetical.Quick, who are today’s heroes? Are they socialist? Do they argue about victimhood, real or perceived slights, or penance owed? When you think of young visionaries like Elon Musk and building rockets and electric cars and changing the world, do you immediately think of the progressive left, socialism and redress politics? Or do you think about individual responsibility, the benefits of capitalism, can-do optimism and a potentially bright future? Futuristic companies — those planning for the 2030’s — need to have some big picture optimism and big, hairy, audacious goals. So too do teens. Young boys, especially, are constantly told in the larger social awareness movement what not to do and how not to behave and other groups are visibly celebrated and encouraged, but the positive role models are being gradually chipped away from their lives.Sadly, an optimistic, expansive and hopeful message isn’t really being delivered by the progressive left these days. It used to be, but those days are gone for now. It’s all too often a guilt-driven, schoolmarmish, you’re-to-blame because-of-your-identity-group-but-only-for-certain-groups, the-pie-is-fixed, everything-sucks kind of redress-oriented message.The right is now generally more likely to defend freedom of expression, open debate, and accountability on an individual level, and the progressive left is arguably in some cases more authoritarian and too quick to focus on inalterable attributes of an individual, broadly their “identity group”, to assign collective judgment and/or demand action.Schools like to feel they are embracing a healthy dialogue on touchy subjects like sexual assault, misogyny and sexism, racism, income inequality and many more topics, but the discussion tends to only allow for an oppression-style explainer. That is, the debate rarely allows for challenging data or perspectives from the right — e.g., the rapid rise of fatherless homes, cultural norms which “define success down” or chide high achievers for “acting white,” the data that suggests that some of the pay-gap between women and men is driven by which fields are typically chosen by individuals, etc. Since the social and sometimes academic cost are just too high for raising it, most perspectives which might challenge the “oppression/racism/sexism/etc is the only explainer for discrepancies” (and guess who’s the perpetrator in all cases) model are left to online chat rooms, rarely the school itself. The in-class discussion is incomplete, and only able to process the oppression part of the model — meaning: oppressor: bad, and don’t try to inject any notion of personal responsibility, or you’ll be shredded.And so, for many young teens coming of age, the “victimhood as currency” approach is a turnoff. Queue another Ben Shapiro follower.I hope the pendulum may someday swing back to the beautiful, optimistic and inclusive dream of MLK, and there’s some hope that it will.Even the erudite and often thoughtful left-leaning opinion sites are starting to question the value of identity politics:Also see: Why are there so many people now openly hostile toward “Social Justice Warriors”?Recommended: Mark Lilla’s The Once and Future LiberalIf any of the above rings true for you or a teen in your life, I’d be honored with an upvote; there are far too many intelligent and well-meaning friends on the left who don’t think this is an issue.[EDIT: 1,000+ upvotes. Thank you to the many students who have chimed in on the comments section, voicing agreement. You hearten me. Do not turn away from social progress and judging people by the content of their character. Keep hope alive.]—*Examples of such uncomfortable notions that cannot and must not be expressed or explored at school, lest you be a social or even academic pariah: “Doesn’t level of parental involvement radically effect student outcome, and isn’t the unmarried rate in certain communities much lower than other communities? By that logic, is racism really the only explainer for why black citizens are incarcerated at such a higher rate than other ethnic groups, or is there anything cultural that may also be at foot which holds back achievement?” “What’s behind the fatherless crisis in some minority communities?” “Does personal choice enter into the reason why there’s an 80/20 ratio of EE/CS majors, or is it all oppression or lack of access? I look around and see plenty of access that my female peers have to technology, just as I do.”The irony is that many educators go to conferences with seminars which cogently and deeply tackle these and other topics more honestly, openly and completely, but in the school environment, there is an overemphasis on the “oppression explains this discrepancy” model compared to those explainers which involve personal volition, choice, responsibility and culture.

Federal prosecutions of felons and fugitives who attempt to buy a firearm round to zero.  In 2010, out of 48,321 felons and fugitives who attempted to illegally purchase firearms, the Department of Justice prosecuted only 44 of them.So let me explain how this works:  You go to a federally licensed dealer, you pick out a gun, and you fill out ATF Form 4473.  Among other things that you swear to by filling out and signing the form are that you are not a convicted felon, you are not a fugitive from justice, you have not been adjudicated mentally deficient, and about a dozen other things, most of which would firmly place you into groups that society doesn't want owning a gun.The dealer then checks your answers, and if for instance you answered that you have a conviction for domestic violence, he basically shreds your 4473 and tells you to get out.  Otherwise...The dealer then calls the FBI NICS check system where an operator keys in your personal information, several databases are searched, and they attempt to verify that you don't fall into any of those prohibited groups.  In 2010, 48,321 times, a search of those databases by the FBI showed that a person attempting to buy a gun was a convicted felon or a fugitive from justice.  Their sales were denied.  Let's be very clear here: At this point they have committed a federal crime by attempting to illegally purchase a firearm.  This should be a slam-dunk case: there's a signed form stating that they're not prohibited, there's data in the FBI's databases stating that they are prohibited, and there's a witness to their fraud (the dealer) who can testify.And yet, in only 44 out of those 48,321 instances were they prosecuted for it by the Department of Justice.

TL;DR: I couldn’t believe it. It took me 30 minutes to realize it was real. I even verified if the email i’ve recieved was not a scam. In fact I didn’t even remember I applied!Flashback: I applied in October 2010, after a six-week trip in Southern California. I was back in Paris and I was suffocating. I missed the space, the nature, the friendly and warm SoCal, the weather, etc.So I applied in late 2010 after I took my first full time employee job. It was easy, I just needed to fill out a form, send a couple of pictures taken by a professional photographer (I remember the ugly beige and purple striped sweater I was wearing too! A pure fashion piece now archived into the immigration administration database.) and uploaded all to the dedicated website. Note that the department of state only opens that website during the time of application, during about a month.Fast forward: I checked my applicant status in May 2011, with zero hope I could have won. And I didn't find my name in the annual bulletin.Life had moved on, I started to date my soon to be husband, I changed job - which was horrible - but once in a while me and my husband we were taking about our dream jobs and life. He was telling me that he always wanted to covered NBA basketball (we literally live 20 min from the Oracle stadium and he’s still too shy to apply) and I was telling him that I always wanted to cover tech industry in the San Francisco Bay Area (I’m not lying).But then, on Friday, July the 13th (I’m not joking), I received an email from the department of state let me know that I should check again my status, forwarding me my application number, which I did, and I was pre-selected!Again, I couldn't believe it, so I stalk all the Internet to make sure that the email was a scam. But since the domain name associated to the email was “state.gov”, my doubts were dismissed and I started to compulsively repeate “No!”.Now I can tell you when I called my husband and my mom how their first reactions were. But that’s another story.

Worked as a quant at a big investment bank.  Now I have my own company.  You have to take everything that I say with knowledge that I'm talking about the past, and the anything about what life was like in 2007 or even 2010 may be irrelevant for 2014.Workload is surprisingly not too bad.  Most quants work 60 hour weeks which is standard in the high tech industry.  No one I know works killer hours like the people in mergers and accquistions, and there is no point in working when the markets are closed.  When you leave for home, there are always a lot of food delivery people in the lobby.The compensation has gone down over the last few years as bonus has been replaced by base salary, but it's slightly higher than in the other tech industries.  You however will feel more poor than you have ever felt.  When you are in a room full of people who make >$1M/year, and you make $150K, you feel really, really, really poor.  Their kids go to better schools, they have nicer houses, bigger cars, they get into conversations about where to take vacations, and you feel like you are living in a cardboard box.  You are either in a cube farm or in a front offices position.  If you are in front office, you are at a long table, and you see traders screaming at each other.  Most of it is "friendly screaming" (i.e. buy X at Y!!!! The price is going down!!!!)  Some of it is "unfriendly screaming" over the phone.The soft skills aren't the economics and finance.  You can learn that.  The important soft skills are the interpersonal relational ones.  How to resolve conflict or not resolve conflict, how to get people to like you, how to get people to know what you are doing.  Also the cool things is that the rules change.  It's useless to read most economics and finance textbooks because the information and models there are just plain wrong, and your job is to come up with the right ones.Any example of a soft skill is when you look at something and think, "this is nonsense".  Rather than say "this is total nonsense" you spend an hour drafting a three sentence e-mail using the correct corporate language for "raising a concern" and then you spend the next hour editing the CC line.  One reason that I liked the job was that I considered this an intellectual puzzle, and it amused me how traders would use the most rude and blunt language while a lot of the e-mails are in extremely elegant bureaucratic nonsense, and you know your e-mail is going to be ignored so you are just setting up a signNow trail so that you don't get blamed when something blows up (or so that you do accept liability for something blowing up).One reason that finance needs so many physics Ph.D.'s is that in physics, once you figure out the rules, they don't change.  Once Einstein figures out general relativity, no need for a new Einstein.  The cool thing about finances is that everything changes.  The interest rate models that were used before 2008, for example, just *will not work*.  So your job is to come up with new ones.  And once you come up with new things, the rules change again.  Once the Fed stops QE, there will be very, very curious things happening with interest rates.  I don't know what they are, but we'll figure them out.Also, you occasionally get to "geek out" on some curious bit of trivia that is not so trivial.  You get really familiar with things like Brazilian calendars, Japanese corporate finance, and when traders in Hong Kong eat lunch.You also see a fascinating world of wealth and power.  You are not part of that world.  Your boss who makes >$1 million/year is a butler for the people that really run the planet.  You are an assistant butler.  One of the more interesting experiences is to watch your boss talk to *his boss* and *his boss* talk to clients.  As with wealth, if you want to feel powerful, don't work for an investment bank.  Where I used to work, promotion to VP was automatically after three years.  Above that is a *lot* of political maneuvering.  Most people figure out that they signNowed the glass ceiling and leave.  The problem is traditional investment banking is not growing, and the regulators won't let the banks do anything new or original, so the politics is a bit nastier than in the early-2000's when the field was growing.  One reason that I got out was that the work starting being filling out forms for the government which wasn't that terribly interesting.The one thing that I think was good was that I got in at just the right time.  I got in at 2007, and when the world exploded in 2008, I had a front row seat, and I played a small part in helping to save the world.  As the world was falling apart, the computer models at the bank I was working at were constantly failing because they were getting stressed, and I helped make sure that the compiles were working.

None of us should be surprised that the government tries to evade or otherwise violate the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms; such is the very reason for the amendment in the first place.We can all safely assume -- and we have certainly witnessed it with the Obama Administration -- that all governments will naturally try to expand the scope of their power, always at the expense of citizens.  Such is the reason for guaranteeing rights such as gun ownership.  Also, for reasons of self-defense.Perhaps some of you recall that history tidbit from World War 2, after Pearl Harbor but before America had begun to rearm.  The Japanese military was meeting to plan the next stage of the war against the Americans, and the head of the Japanese Army suggested landing troops in a West Coast city such as Seattle, Portland, or Los Angeles.Admiral Isoroko Yamamoto advised against any such move.  Yamamoto had been educated in the USA at Harvard, had been a naval attache in Washington DC, spoke fluent English, and knew American culture.  His reply to the brash Army commander was, "You can't invade America, because they have a right to keep and bear arms.  Americans will be hiding behind every tree and rock shooting at our troops and we will never be able to conquer them."That is another one of the reasons why we have a 2nd Amendment.

There’s a reason drug dealers store cash in storage units and paint buckets, because it’s not easy laundering money. What could Walter have done? Let’s go through his options one by one:Option 1: Although the The Bank Secrecy Act (1970) requires banks to report transactions above $10,000, Walter could have employed Smurfs (drug mules, but for cash) to make thousands of tiny deposits, which would draw less attention from authorities.Problem: Walter did not have a criminal organization to carry this out. What’s he going to do if a smurf runs off with his money, send Jesse after him with a bong?Option 2: Buy high-ticket items such as vintage comic books or supercars and sell them later.Problem: Similar to the Bank Secrecy Act, businesses have to file a Form 8300, “Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business”. Even if those reports don’t alarm the IRS, the large transfers from other people who he would sell the goods would raise red flags, and he’s back to square one.Option 3: Get the money out of the country through casinos or smuggling diamonds.Problem: Even if Walter succeeds in laundering the money while overseas (gamble at a casino and cash out the chips in Macau, for example), he still needs to deposit the clean money at a foreign bank. Unfortunately for Walt, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (2010) requires Americans living outside the U.S. to file yearly reports on their non-U.S. financial accounts to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN). Banks outside the U.S. are required to fill out a “Know Your Customer” form when you open an account – someone like Walter would immediately raise concerns. This is why many banks in Europe won’t even let Americans open a bank account.Option 4: Invest in the stock market as the OP suggests.Problem: Same thing, any brokerage firm would be obligated to file a Suspicious activity report (SAR) if Walter were to make large deposits that is not commensurate with his income as a high school chemistry teacher.Option 5: Hire a “professional” to do the money laundering, there must be a smart guy who knows how to set up “offshore” bank accounts and stuff.Problem: Money Laundering Control Act (1986) makes money laundering a crime in itself instead of just an element of another crime, so even Saul Goodman would think twice about getting involved with money laundering. And as for finding an export, in 1996, Harvard-educated economist Franklin Jurado was sentenced to 7 1/2 years in prison for laundering $36m for a Colombian cartel.Conclusion: Money laundering was always an afterthought for Walter – he was too busy dealing with the day-to-day stuff of manufacturing and distributing drugs. Walter might have been able to launder that $100m if he had devoted more time and resources into the project, but ultimately, the results might not necessarily be better than burying the money in the desert. His goal was to provide for his family, and barrels of money in the desert does exactly that.—————Edit 1: A few comments have mentioned smuggling the cash (or converted to gold) out to to other countries. I think somehow the idea of the “open sea” implies lawlessness, but it doesn’t. The U.S. Custom and Border Protection has strict Reporting Requirements for pleasure boats, not to mention inspections. If that weren’t the case, people would be smuggling drugs willy-nilly across U.S. borders. However, I’m reminded of the 2001 Movie Heist, starring Gene Hackman as a con-artist. At the very end of the movie, spoiler alert, he took the elicit gold bars, melt them into yacht rails and painted over them, thus avoiding detection.Edit 2: Remi Alaiti pointed out that Saul Goodman did offer to help them launder the money through nail salons (as we know now he got the idea from his Jimmy McGill days), so I stand corrected. However, like the car wash, the nail salon would be too small potatoes to make a signNow dent laundering the $80m.Edit 3: As for Bitcoins, it’s less secure than burying money in the desert. See Jonathan Chen's answer to Should I invest in Bitcoin? for details.*I maintain that Walter original purpose for manufacturing was to provide for his family, thus the money would’ve had to stay in the country. In time, if his wife and son were on board, they could’ve opened more car washes, nail salons, and other cash-heavy businesses, say, Los Pollos Hermanos franchises, to slowly launder the money.

I was selected for a summer internship 2016.I tried to be very open while filling the preference form: I choose many products as my favorite products and I said I'm open about the team I want to join.I even was very open in the  location and start date to get host matching interviews (I negotiated the start date in the interview until both me and my host were happy.) You could ask your recruiter to review your form (there are very cool and could help you a lot since they have a bigger experience).Do a search on the potential team.Before the interviews,  try to find smart question that you are going to ask for the potential host (do a search on the team  to find nice and deep questions to impress your host). Prepare well your resume.You are very likely not going to get algorithm/data structure questions like in the first round. It's going to be just some friendly chat if you are lucky. If your potential team is working on something like machine learning, expect that  they are going to ask you questions about machine learning, courses related to machine learning you have and relevant experience (projects, internship). Of course you have to study that before the interview. Take as long time as you need if you feel rusty. It takes some time to get ready for the host matching (it's less than the technical interview)  but it's worth it of course.

Just register on the admission portal and during registration you will get an option for the entrance based course. Just register there. There is no separate form for DU CIC.

Many people today are considering certificate education rather than a degree. ... After all, going into debt for a certificate is not a good idea unless there was a possibility of greater earning potential in the future. But an academic certificate program is well worth the investment.

Deadline for reporting foreign accounts This means that the 2018 FBAR, Form 114, must be filed electronically with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) by April 15, 2019. FinCEN grants filers missing the April 15 deadline an automatic extension until Oct. 15, 2019, to file the FBAR.

A United States person, including a citizen, resident, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, trust and estate, must file an FBAR to report: a financial interest in or signature or other authority over at least one financial account located outside the United States if.

A US person who is a partner in a foreign partnership (or an entity electing to be taxed as a partnership) is required to file Form 8865 to report the income and financial position of the partnership and to report certain transactions between the partner and the partnership.

The general rule is that foreign real estate is not reportable to the IRS on Form 8938. ... If you qualify to file Form 8938, you are to report financial accounts maintained by a foreign financial institution.