|
Grex > Coop11 > #10: Grex Granted Tax-Exempt Status |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 127 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 74 of 127:
| 
Jul 26 11:52 UTC 1998 |
Grex is naturally growing all the time. Check out the length of the password
file some time, and compare the average number of online users vs. a year ago,
or two years ago.
|
aaron
|
|
response 75 of 127:
|
Jul 26 15:20 UTC 1998 |
I don't know that the password file is the best place to look for evidence
of growth, nor that even if it were the place to look for growth in size,
that it would be the best place to look for the type of growth of which I
am speaking. Is the growth due to international users who like free email
and party, for example?
|
mta
|
|
response 76 of 127:
|
Jul 26 15:30 UTC 1998 |
This would be a much more productive conversation if *someone* would speak
in specifics about what they think Grex ought to do with its 501C3 status,
so I'll start:
Now, with with extra resources 501C3 will provide through taxavings and any
donations it inspires, I think Grex ought to focus on making as much access
to computer and information resources accessible to as many people as we can
support worldwide.
That would include finding ways to bring more locals on board over the dialins
and make more telnet ports available for the rest as quickly as that's
feasible. The people we bring in will provide the information resources to
one another.
We might also add asection to the Handbook about how to use lynx. (Working
on that one myself.)
Next...
|
aaron
|
|
response 77 of 127:
|
Jul 26 16:40 UTC 1998 |
Here's the thing, though, Misti -- Abornet has proved quite decisively that
just having 501(C)(3) status will *not* inspire people to donate. Recall\
that most people do not itemize, and most do not give enough to take any real
advantage of the charitable contribution deduction.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch -- and try to think of ways to
incubate the eggs.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 78 of 127:
|
Jul 26 17:33 UTC 1998 |
It is the organizations purposes and activities that inspire people to
donate - 501(c)3 is just a little icing on the cake.
I don't know what Grex might seek a grant for, but an organization has
essentially zero chance of obtaining a grant unless they are 501(c)3
tax exempt. Something to consider if there is some new venture that
Grex would like to expand into (such as, educational programs).
|
tpryan
|
|
response 79 of 127:
|
Jul 26 17:51 UTC 1998 |
A measurement of growth for me would be the number of "voices"
in this agora.cf vs. a year ago or two years ago. A voice would be
a userid entering or responding to item(s). Exclude very low volume
users--those that enter item in error, or respond only to the welcome
item to not be heard again.
Has anyone made this measurement? Perhaps this methodology and
discusion seserves a new item?
|
mikeg
|
|
response 80 of 127:
|
Jul 26 18:32 UTC 1998 |
Re #76: Along the lines of expansion, as mdw noted earler, the tax exemt
status may give large companies incentive to donate new hardware (read-
FASTER hardware), which would be a definate advantage to the 501(c)(3)
status.
Private donations would also be encouraged, at least for people who
itemize their taxes, as they could claim Grex as a deduction now.
|
mta
|
|
response 81 of 127:
|
Jul 26 19:12 UTC 1998 |
I don't think new donations are something to count on, which is why I
emphasized the tax savings. It probably will result in the occasional
corporate donation of hardware, etc. and I think that alone is sufficient.
Of course, we do have to work on finding ways of getting new memebers and
maintaining more existing members -- but I consider that to be a different
issue, since - as Aaron has pointed out - most people won't be influenced all
that much.
As Rane says, our best best in getting new members is to look for people who
are willing to donate because of what Grex is and what it does. Those people
are out there, I'm sure. We have to find them and make it as attractive as
possible for them to join in supporting the system.
After listening to Dan R. at the last board meeting, I think it may be time
to take a look at credit card options again. It may still be too expensive,
but it could add enough convemience for our members that I think it's worth
checking every so often anyway.
I'm wary about looking for grants. I'd be concerend about rwo things:
1) any restrictions the grant-givers might want to place on Grex
and
2) letting folks get the perception that Grex doesn't need grass-roots support
because it's government/grant funded. Most of what makes Grex special is its
grassroots nature. That doesn't rule out specific grant moneys for specific
expansions -- but I think it would fundamentally change the nature of our
system to depend on grants for support of our daily needs.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 82 of 127:
|
Jul 26 20:51 UTC 1998 |
Unfounded worries. One gets a grant to *do* something over a period of
time, and when it is over, it is done.
I don't think that there would be a fall-off of grass roots support if
Grex got a grant that started something new that they could also take
advantage of. In fact, it could attract even more members to donate to
continue the activity.
|
mdw
|
|
response 83 of 127:
|
Jul 26 21:03 UTC 1998 |
There is no danger of us *not* using the 501c3 status. We'll soon be
making use of one minor, but pleasant surprise -- it seems 501c3 status
means we don't need to pay state and local taxes on our phone lines
anymore.
|
mikeg
|
|
response 84 of 127:
|
Jul 26 22:05 UTC 1998 |
Getting rid of phone taxes is a very good thing :)
It might also be worthwhile to have Grex moved to it's own electric
meter (Check with your landlord and the electric company about this, it
would let you write off the taxes on electricity, but might wind up
costing too much to be worth anything).
Also, looking for other possible benefits, does Grex pay any taxes on
the lease? It might be possible to eliminate those also. Certainly
worth an attempt.
|
aruba
|
|
response 85 of 127:
|
Jul 26 22:10 UTC 1998 |
Re #82,83: I share Misti's 2 worries about grants, but having no
experience with them, I will take Rane's word for it that it is possible
to avoid them. I think we should keep the pifalls in mind, though, if we
decide to apply for a grant. (In other words, I believe Rane when he says
that it's possible to get a grant and not be subject to strings or promote
disinterest among users, but I'm not convinced that things can't go awry.
So I think we should be careful.)
|
aruba
|
|
response 86 of 127:
|
Jul 26 22:12 UTC 1998 |
(#84 slipped in) No, we don't pay taxes on our lease. I will call Detroit
Edison some time to see what it would take to get us our own meter, but I
suspect it's going to turn out to be more than we can recoup in a reasonable
amount of time.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 87 of 127:
|
Jul 27 07:18 UTC 1998 |
The main difficulty that can come up with a grant is that somehow you
were given one, but are not set up administratively to accomplish the task
for which it was given. One keeps reading about situations like this in
Detroit. What should be done is to return the grant, but this is tough
if you've already set up the system to use it, even imperfectly.
My main point is that the word "grant" does not necessarily mean "doom".
Quite the opposite, in fact, in most cases. Granting agencies are probably
even more careful than most applicants in ascertaining that the applicant
really is qualified to exercise the grant.
|
janc
|
|
response 88 of 127:
|
Jul 27 19:08 UTC 1998 |
Re resp:66, Re resp:49:
I don't think there are two different dates. Here's a quote from
IRS Publication 557:
EFFECTIVE DATE OF EXEMPTION
A ruling or determination letter recognizing exemption is
EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE OF FORMATION OF AN ORGANIZATION
if, during the period before the date of the ruling or
determination letter, its purposes and activities were
those required by law [deleted reference to section of manual
which tells what the law requires]. Upon obtaining recognition
of exemption, the organization may file a claim for a refund
of income taxes paid for the period for which its exempt status
is recognized.
If an organization is required to alter its activities or
substantially amend its charter to qualify, the ruling or
determination letter recognizing exemption will be EFFECTIVE
AS OF THE DATE SPECIFIED IN THE LETTER. If a nonsubstantial
amendment is made, such as correction of a clerical error in
the enabling instrument or the addition of a dissolution clause,
exemption will ordinarily be recognized as of the date of formation
if the activities of the organization before the ruling or
determination are consistent with the exemption requirements.
A ruling or determination letter recognizing exemption MAY NOT
BE RELIED UPON IF there is a material change, inconsistant with
exemption, in the character, the purpose, or the method of
operation of the organization.
This is pretty clear that the default and normal situation is that
recognition is retroactive to the founding of the corporation. It is
also clear that if there was some other date, it would be mentioned in
the letter. It explicitly says that our right not to pay federal taxes
goes back retroactively and that we could ask for anything we paid to be
returned. It does not explicitly mention the deductability of
donations, but I've never seen anything to suggest that not paying taxes
and deductability of donations are seperable.
Once again, non-retroactive status is not the default. If you are
applying for that, you have to specificly request it by checking the
"yes" box on line 6 of part III of the application form. We did not
check that box.
|
davel
|
|
response 89 of 127:
|
Jul 27 23:02 UTC 1998 |
(It's the default if you have to make changes in order to gain 501(c)3 status,
if I understand that. And that might be the normal case.)
|
tpryan
|
|
response 90 of 127:
|
Jul 28 01:18 UTC 1998 |
So at least, all of 1998 can be called a tax-exempt year?
|
janc
|
|
response 91 of 127:
|
Jul 28 12:46 UTC 1998 |
Yes. For most people that's going to be the relevant fact.
But I'm convinced that every year since Grex's founding has been a
tax-exempt year.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 92 of 127:
|
Jul 28 18:30 UTC 1998 |
So, everyone, file amended tax returns for all those years.....
|
aaron
|
|
response 93 of 127:
|
Jul 28 22:42 UTC 1998 |
re #88: You are again dealing with a separate issue -- the corporation's
tax liability. Call the IRS -- they'll clear up the issue.
|
janc
|
|
response 94 of 127:
|
Aug 1 01:09 UTC 1998 |
In everything I've read (which is a lot), I have never seen any hint
that these two issues are separate under any circumstances at all. If
there were any situation in which an organization didn't have to pay
taxes, but people donating money to it did, then I think that would be a
significant enough thing so that the IRS would have made some mention of
it in one of their publications. My understanding is that the "two
issues" are one and the same.
You're going to have to present at least a thread of evidence to support
your contention before I start believing that this is an issue that
needs clearing up. It seems perfectly clear to me.
|
aaron
|
|
response 95 of 127:
|
Aug 1 23:59 UTC 1998 |
Jan, it is *typical* for the IRS to set an effective date for the
deductibility of charitable contributions. I have never heard of any
organization where years and years of past contributions were allowed
to be retroactively deducted, whatever the status of the organization's
tax liabilities. Perhaps you can name one?
The problem here, Jan, appears to be that you are afraid that I am
correct.
|
keesan
|
|
response 96 of 127:
|
Aug 2 00:10 UTC 1998 |
I think you can only redo your taxes for the past three years anyway.
Aaron, I would appreciate if you could phrase your questions and comments less
aggressively. Maybe you could use phrases like "I think" or "in my opinion"
instead of "The problem appears to be". That is your opinion. Your style
of expressions is probably normal for court appearances, but people in grex
are attempting to work together, not against each other.
|
aaron
|
|
response 97 of 127:
|
Aug 2 01:13 UTC 1998 |
This response has been erased.
|
aaron
|
|
response 98 of 127:
|
Aug 2 01:17 UTC 1998 |
Perhaps the problem was the obnoxious way Jan phrased his last paragraph.
I am not responsible for the fact that there are people on this system
who view any challenge to the status quo, no matter how reasoned, as
hostility. If you think Jan's last paragraph was an effort at consensus
building, I suggest you examine your own prejudices before challenging
my presentation.
|