Skip to content
ORFORD · E-2 FIELD GUIDE

In Orford, what should explain informal family funding terms?

Sources checked:

THE DIRECT ANSWER

Use accurate records and an explanation of the actual understanding, transfers and obligations.

Resolve inconsistent descriptions

A bank reference calling money a gift may conflict with an agreement to repay it. Clarify the real facts instead of preparing documents that contradict the parties’ actual arrangement.

Create a funding memorandum that matches contemporaneous evidence. It should identify each contributor, lawful source, account-to-account path, transfer date, repayment term, security, and any later amendment. Pair it with bank statements, wire confirmations, tax or sale records, and a truthful gift or loan instrument; unexplained cash and backdated declarations create avoidable credibility problems. Independently establish treaty nationality, at least 50% ownership or operational control, irrevocably committed at-risk funds, substantiality, and a real non-marginal operating enterprise. A source document does not prove commitment, and an invoice does not prove source. E-2 offers no direct green-card path. The common mistake is drafting a clean agreement that contradicts informal messages.

Hypothetical example: an Orford woodcraft-studio buyer receives three transfers from siblings before they settle whether the money will be repaid. She should preserve their messages, record when terms became final, and explain why early bank descriptions differ from the executed agreement. Each sibling's source records and every intermediate account belong in the path. Separately, the acquisition contract, equipment invoices, ownership register, and operating plan should show her control, commercial risk, and a business capable of providing more than a minimal living for her household or making a significant economic contribution. An accountant's “family support” notation cannot resolve ambiguous legal obligations by itself.