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.

response 108 of 127:

Aug 5 01:15 UTC 1998

Re resp:106 - Actually Aaron has acknowledged those facts, and that Grex
has the retroactive right not to have paid taxes.

His claim is that the same may not apply to the right of other people to
deduct their donations to Grex from their taxes.  Every proof I've seen
of the retroactive status refers only to our "tax-exempt status" and
does not explicitly mention "deductability of donations," so Aaron's
claim is not directly defeated by any of it.  However, I've always
assumed that having tax-exempt status implies absolutely that donations
are deductable (within the usual limits), and I have never seen anything
to indicate otherwise except Aaron's bald statement to the effect.  I
feel that if something that important isn't mentioned in all the
publications I've read, then it is either because the IRS has been
seriously remiss, or because it doesn't exist.  I believe the latter,
but cannot absolutely deny the possibility of the former.  It would take
more research to prove one or the other of us right.

response 110 of 127:

Aug 6 07:16 UTC 1998

Aaron, if you want to retroactively deduct your donations to Grex, you should
consult your tax advisor.  Grex staff is not in the position to provide any
more information than they have about what the papers we received from the
IRS say.  Apparently they allow people like you to deduct their donations
back to the beginning of Grex.  I'm sure anyone for whom this is a serious
question has a tax advisor that they can trust to advise them in light of
their own financial situation. 

For those of us who are not seriously considering redoing our tax returns,
it is a waste of staff time to continue asking for information that we have
no intention of making use of.  

response 112 of 127:

May 12 15:46 UTC 1999

I am sure Mark could have told this story better, but here is a brief summary
of Kiwanis' Electronics Dept's adventures with Ameritech.

We have been testing out computers with Netscape, on the one Kiwanis phone
line, and kept getting bumped off due to call waiting.  Nobody in charge at
Kiwanis knew why we had call waiting so Jim was given permission to call
Ameritech to cancel it.  He had no problem cancelling call waiting, just told
them the phone number and his name.

In connection with our move to a new room, we were also given permission to
get a new phone line installed so that we would be able to test out phones
and answering machines by calling between the two numbers (and not get bumped
off line when anyone picked up the phone).  Jim set up an installation date
and time and was told to be there Thursday before May 1 from 8 to noon.   To
get a new line he was required to spell out his complete name as the contact
person, and to given them the main phone line in the building, which is on
the corner of First and Washington St. in Ann Arbor.

After nobody showed up by 1 he made a few phone calls and eventually learned
that the installer had been sent to Kiwanis pre 1965 address on Fourth Ave,
which Ameritech had as the Kiwanis address for the phone number given to them.
(One wonders where the bills are being sent to).  Jim had given them the
current address.  Eventually the new phone got installed, as tone phone.

Today Jim asked me to call and change it to pulse phone.  They could not find
the number (Jim had reversed two digits) so asked for the service order
number.  When I called back with it they said they had no record of the
service order number, and never keep that record once the phone is installed
(this is a different and more clever person on teh second call).  Jim figured
out the correct number and they asked for my name and said it did not match
the name on the account, which had to be the name on the main number.  They
could not tell me the main number or the name.  It was not Jim Deigert. 
Eventually they parted with the first name, someone we had never heard of.
I put Jim on the phone and he explained that Ameritech seemed to be using a
very obsolete address for Kiwanis and possibly the person whose name they had
was no longer alive, and it was his name that was supposed to be on the
account.  They relented and gave him the person's name, which we never heard
of.  They still refuse to give us any information about charges other than
$13.20 plus taxes and they cannot tell us the taxes because our name is not
on the account.  Plus 8.53 cents/call because it is a business account because
we are using it to sell things.  (We are not exactly using it to sell things,
just to test them out).  

        Jim left a message for the person who he thinks is in charge of the
other telephone number to call back and help fix the situation.  Anyway,
Kiwanis is probably eligible, as a non-profit, not to pay the taxes, whatever
they may be.  (We still cannot imagine why they cannot tell us how much state
and federal tax is paid on a typical business account unless we are the actual
person associated with a particular account.)  We may be asking for Mark's
help filling out some forms for this.

Do businesses have to pay extra to have an unlisted number?

response 114 of 127:

May 13 15:31 UTC 1999

TWo of the three lines are probably eligible, the other line is for the club,
not the non-profit foundation.  Thanks.  We may want to call out on the
non-profit line to save paying taxes on each 8.53 cent call.  Mark, do you
know the monthly charge including taxes for a business line?

Jim called the current Kiwanis Club secretary.  The phone company apparently
had his name along with that of a former secretary and he gets the bills. 
He will call and ask them to put Jim's name on instead of the former secretary
so that Jim can call and find out how we are being billed, and he will also
ask about the other line (unlimited or per-call charges).  I will now attempt
to call and get some general information on the costs of a business line.

response 116 of 127:

May 13 18:48 UTC 1999

I called and got someone intelligent this time.  $20/line plus 8.53 cents per
outgoing call plus 3 percent federal and 6 percent state tax.  She defined
a business as any place without both kitchen and sleeping area. (The previous
unhelpful person said it is a business if it makes money).  She offered to
mail the tax-exempt form to the mailing address for the Kiwanis numbers and
never once asked our names, just the phone numbers.  Tax would be on the base
rate plus all calls and we may be exempt from all tax on all three lines. 
We may ask for help with the forms when they come.  Make that about $19-20,
she said it depended on our phone number and other things.  All business lines
require that you pay per call, unfortunately.  What we really need now is some
sort of null-modem type arrangement (an internal phone connection) to test
out fax machines and answering machines on, with no per-call fee.  JIm has
schematics for building something like that, he says it is not simple.  Does
anyone know a simple way of doing this?
        We would then only need the phone lines for grex/Netscape and could
use our little box to test equipment on, even modems.
        WOuld anyone like to build one of these for us from the schematics?
It would be a good high school science project, says Jim.  We could issue
credit for it maybe.