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. 

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.

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.

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.

response 90 of 127:

Jul 28 01:18 UTC 1998

        So at least, all of 1998 can be called a tax-exempt year?

response 92 of 127:

Jul 28 18:30 UTC 1998

So, everyone, file amended tax returns for all those years.....

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.  

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.

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.

response 100 of 127:

Aug 2 21:06 UTC 1998

I am pushing people's patience to the limit? How? By suggesting that they
check to see that the gun is not loaded before playing Russian Roulette
with the IRS? I don't see that I was asking a whole lot, in suggesting
that somebody make a simple phone call to clarify the issue.

I don't get upset by Jan's comments -- Jan, most of the time, is one of
my favorite on-line personalties, whether or not I agree with him. If you
are getting upset about this discussion, the problem is not with Jan's
comments or with mine. The problem is that you lack perspective.

response 102 of 127:

Aug 4 00:18 UTC 1998

I don't think there is anything "offensive" about the last sentence of
my resp:94.  You have a theory.  I have a different theory.  You claim
that the burden of resolving the difference falls on me.  That I should
go out and do a lot of research.  Why should I do that?  I'm a busy
person.  I have to decide if I'm going to research tax law for Grex,
process the 500 message backlog in my staff mail, work on Backtalk, or
maybe do some paying work.  I have to prioritize things.  How much
priority I give to researching this issue depends on how worried I am
about it, and how much good I think it will do.  So far, nothing you've
said has convinced me to worry very hard, and since I don't really
understand the position you are taking, any research I do to try to
prove or disprove it is likely to prove worthless anyway.

I'm not "afraid to be proved wrong".  I have lots of experience with
being wrong, and if you do prove me wrong, I'll deploy my tried and true
strategy for such cases - I'll change my mind and henceforth be correct.

You aren't pushing my patience.  I'll be happy to respond to anything. 
If I find it convincing, I'll be convinced.  So far the few sentences
you've entered supporting your case have not overwhelmed my own
opinions, but you needn't take that as condemnation - it's not as if
you've actually presented your argument yet.

response 104 of 127:

Aug 4 01:26 UTC 1998

<chuckle>

response 106 of 127:

Aug 4 23:20 UTC 1998

Then there is that nagging issue about how we filled out the application
to be retroactive to the beginning of time.  (Cyberspace Communications
Inc, time).  And that other nagging fact that the IRS accepted our
application without ammendment or comment.  These seem to be big red
letters screaming from the wall that this argument is pointless.  Maybe
some loud voice in this item should calm down and think about the info
we have before demanding we run all over the planet getting more info. 
This all came out more inflammatory than I intended, but I've been
pretty inflammed.