A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

US Cycling Development Foundation Tax Filing Questions



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 13th 06, 01:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default US Cycling Development Foundation Tax Filing Questions

Interesting that in the Foundation's 990 for 2004 Steve Johnson is listed in
Statement 8 as received $125,000.00 plus a benefit contribution of
$25,,892.00 dollars from USA Cycling, Inc. as a related organization.
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocument...01df1fc9-9.pdf

However, the 2004 990 filing for USA Cycling, Inc. does not list any salary
payment to Steve Johnson.
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocument...01e3d06a-9.pdf
The 990 does list compensation for Gerard B. in the amount of $158,750.00

So where the $125,000 that Steve Johnson says he didn't get from USACDF that
is reported on the USACDF 990 as coming from USAC, Inc. which is not listed
on USAC, Inc.'s form 990?



Ads
  #2  
Old April 13th 06, 12:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default US Cycling Development Foundation Tax Filing Questions


"Casey Kerrigan" wrote in message
...
In article . net, B.
Lafferty wrote:

Interesting that in the Foundation's 990 for 2004 Steve Johnson is listed
in
Statement 8 as received $125,000.00 plus a benefit contribution of
$25,,892.00 dollars from USA Cycling, Inc. as a related organization.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocument...1-01df1fc9-9.p
df

However, the 2004 990 filing for USA Cycling, Inc. does not list any
salary
payment to Steve Johnson.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocument...7-01e3d06a-9.p
df
The 990 does list compensation for Gerard B. in the amount of $158,750.00

So where the $125,000 that Steve Johnson says he didn't get from USACDF
that
is reported on the USACDF 990 as coming from USAC, Inc. which is not
listed
on USAC, Inc.'s form 990?



Did you bother to read schedule A of the USAC 990 form?


Yes. You missed the point. Who's paid employee is he; USAC or USADF? He's
listed as a USAC employee receiving a USAC salary without mention of a
USACDF employee with a salary drawn from USAC. The problem is in the USAC
filing not making transparent his relationship with USACDF.


  #3  
Old April 13th 06, 08:37 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default US Cycling Development Foundation Tax Filing Questions

B. Lafferty wrote:
"Casey Kerrigan" wrote :
B. Lafferty wrote:


However, the 2004 990 filing for USA Cycling, Inc. does not list any salary
payment to Steve Johnson.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocument...01e3d06a-9.pdf
The 990 does list compensation for Gerard B. in the amount of $158,750.00

So where the $125,000 that Steve Johnson says he didn't get from USACDF that
is reported on the USACDF 990 as coming from USAC, Inc. which is not listed
on USAC, Inc.'s form 990?


Did you bother to read schedule A of the USAC 990 form?


Yes. You missed the point. Who's paid employee is he; USAC or USADF? He's
listed as a USAC employee receiving a USAC salary without mention of a
USACDF employee with a salary drawn from USAC. The problem is in the USAC
filing not making transparent his relationship with USACDF.


Casey answered the question you asked, where does the 2004 990 for
USAC list salary payments to Steve Johnson? It's on schedule A,
which is page 7 of the pdf. If you can't get to page 7 of a form 990
how are you ever going to make it through Proust?

For your new question, the USAC 990 lists him as the paid COO.
The USACDF 990 lists him as the _un_paid executive director and
indicates he is paid by USAC ("Officer Compensation From Related
Organizations" from line 75). You're complaining that the USAC 990
doesn't show that he's the unpaid ED of a related organization. I am
no expert on Form 990, but it's not obvious to me that there's anyplace
to report that. If he was getting paid by USACDF it should show up
on line 75 of USAC's 990, but he isn't.

Not everything a bunch of politically sleazy weasels do is financially
corrupt. Maybe their motives are morally pure - they're just in it for
the power, not the money. (Presumably, the money we're taking
about is pocket change to Thom Weisel, if not to Och or any of the
other employees.)

  #4  
Old April 13th 06, 09:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default US Cycling Development Foundation Tax Filing Questions


wrote in message
oups.com...
B. Lafferty wrote:
"Casey Kerrigan" wrote :
B. Lafferty wrote:


However, the 2004 990 filing for USA Cycling, Inc. does not list any
salary
payment to Steve Johnson.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocument...01e3d06a-9.pdf
The 990 does list compensation for Gerard B. in the amount of
$158,750.00

So where the $125,000 that Steve Johnson says he didn't get from
USACDF that
is reported on the USACDF 990 as coming from USAC, Inc. which is not
listed
on USAC, Inc.'s form 990?


Did you bother to read schedule A of the USAC 990 form?


Yes. You missed the point. Who's paid employee is he; USAC or USADF?
He's
listed as a USAC employee receiving a USAC salary without mention of a
USACDF employee with a salary drawn from USAC. The problem is in the
USAC
filing not making transparent his relationship with USACDF.


Actually, I've read more than enough Proust--all of Remembrance of Things
Past. The original question was not correctly stated, as you note. I should
have focused the question on USAC's not noting the salary in relation to
USACDF.

Casey answered the question you asked, where does the 2004 990 for
USAC list salary payments to Steve Johnson? It's on schedule A,
which is page 7 of the pdf. If you can't get to page 7 of a form 990
how are you ever going to make it through Proust?

For your new question, the USAC 990 lists him as the paid COO.
The USACDF 990 lists him as the _un_paid executive director and
indicates he is paid by USAC ("Officer Compensation From Related
Organizations" from line 75).


This is precisely the issue. Johnson is an officer of USACDF and an officer
of USAC. He is paid by the latter but the placing of Johnson on Schedule 8
of the USACDF lists Johnson as receiving officer compensation (for USACDF
duties) from a related organization. The point is that this is not set out
as a transparent relationship detailing how his USAC compensation relates to
his USACDF compensation derived from the former entity. It seems to me that
a non-profit organization (USAC) making a salary payment to an employee has
the right to expect 100% loyalty from that organization. If USAC made said
salary payment to Johnson, knowing that it was meant to compensate him in
some way for his 10+ hours per week service to USACDF, that should be made
clear along with the structure of that relationship.

When you have a donor foundation requiring seats on the board of trustees of
a donee organization as a condition of grantmaking, you have a situation
that is rife with potential, if not actual, conflict of interest. In such a
situation, complete tranparency is the only way that the public and the
state can determine if both entities are functioning withing the
requuirements of law. That USAC has not made clear their compensatory
relationship with Johnson in relation to USACDF is a significant problem.

You're complaining that the USAC 990
doesn't show that he's the unpaid ED of a related organization. I am
no expert on Form 990, but it's not obvious to me that there's anyplace
to report that. If he was getting paid by USACDF it should show up
on line 75 of USAC's 990, but he isn't.

Not everything a bunch of politically sleazy weasels do is financially
corrupt. Maybe their motives are morally pure - they're just in it for
the power, not the money. (Presumably, the money we're taking
about is pocket change to Thom Weisel, if not to Och or any of the
other employees.)


Ya never know. The Weasel may be hurting after paying that $12+million to
the Feds for alleged securities violations. (I say this tongue in cheek)


  #5  
Old April 15th 06, 05:14 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default US Cycling Development Foundation Tax Filing Questions

"In such a situation, complete tranparency is the only way that the public and the state can determine if both entities are functioning withing the requuirements of law."

There is no duty to obey the state or law when the law is illegitimate.


The "public" doesn't care.

"Ballots are bullets." -- Ben Franklin, 1759

  #6  
Old April 15th 06, 11:58 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default US Cycling Development Foundation Tax Filing Questions


"Pudd'nhead Wilson" wrote in message
ups.com...
"In such a situation, complete tranparency is the only way that the
public and the state can determine if both entities are functioning
withing the requuirements of law."


There is no duty to obey the state or law when the law is illegitimate.


Care to explain your position in detail in ythis context?



The "public" doesn't care.




"Ballots are bullets." -- Ben Franklin, 1759



  #7  
Old April 16th 06, 02:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default US Cycling Development Foundation Tax Filing Questions

"In such a situation, complete tranparency is the only way that the
public and the state can determine if both entities are functioning
withing the requuirements of law."


There is no duty to obey the state or law when the law is illegitimate.


Care to explain your position in detail in ythis context?


Well that would ruin the concept of a quick "one-hit law-and-order
anarchist snipe and leave" action. I can write something -- I expect
you either won't like it, or think it silly.

Your appeal to the state and its laws is insufficient, since the state
is illegitimate. It exists solely upon stolen assets, naked force, and
the threat of force. There is no "social contract" creating a state.
Even if there were, the state would be in breach. (I know I signed no
such contract, or gave power of attorney to do so.)

Appeal to "public interest" is also insufficient. There is no general
"public interest" here. This issue is flatly no business of the state
or the general public.

There could be interest of parties associated with USAC/USACDF. For
example you wrote the following:

The point is that this is not set out
as a transparent relationship detailing how his USAC compensation relates to
his USACDF compensation derived from the former entity... If USAC made said
salary payment to Johnson, knowing that it was meant to compensate him in
some way for his 10+ hours per week service to USACDF, that should be made
clear along with the structure of that relationship.


I don't know if you're saying there is some kind of fraud there (or
even a lack of due care of accurate representation of relationships)
that materially harmed the "associates" of USAC/USACDF. If they said
one thing and did another, and that harmed someone, perhaps there is a
legitimate claim.

Whether the state should be allowed to court such a legitimate case is
yet another question. Since the state already seized the assets to
build courts and pay judges (etcetera), everyone is probably too poor
to afford private adjudication, or to purchase as good of private
adudication that they could otherwise afford. The state's laws are only
relevent if they happen to coincide with legitimate law (emphasis on
coincidence). It is not clear what of the state's laws you believe are
relevently legitimate. State requirements of tax filing is uniformly
illegitimate.

You also wrote:

When you have a donor foundation requiring seats on the board of
trustees of a donee organization as a condition of grantmaking,
you have a situation that is rife with potential, if not actual,
conflict of interest.


This does not sound like a conflict of interest at all. It sounds like
*direct interest*. The "donor" is explicitly saying what they want
(their interest), and they won't give unless those interests are
guarded by seats on the board. No conflict there -- quite direct
interest really. If, on the other hand, there was misrepresentation to
the associates of this relationship, then perhaps there is a claim, but
certainly not "conflict of interest." Not that I really care, but just
call out clearly what the problem is that materially harmed someone.

Here is a true conflict of interest:
A coercive state exists and writes legislation covering a geographical
area. The ostensible guardians of the constitutionality of those laws
-- the judges -- are paid by that same coercive state. Further
evidence of the conflict is that juries -- who initially are able, if
they wish, to determine both the *law* and the facts -- are denuded of
their law determining power by the paid judges, thus removing the last
barrier to balance of interests.
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...es/s066106.pdf
for example.)


Justice Hand "Do justice, sir, do justice."

Justice Holmes "That is not my job. It is my job to apply the law."

One judge called for a system of justice. The other judge resigned to
a system of laws. They are not the same.

(From http://www.friesian.com/nullif.htm#)

I don't know what your beef is. Who was harmed and had their rights
violated?

  #8  
Old April 16th 06, 08:07 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default US Cycling Development Foundation Tax Filing Questions

B Lafferty wrote:
Care to explain your position in detail in ythis context?


Pudd'nhead Wilson wrote:
Well that would ruin the concept of a quick "one-hit law-and-order
anarchist snipe and leave" action. I can write something -- I expect
you either won't like it, or think it silly.

Your appeal to the state and its laws is insufficient, since the state
is illegitimate. It exists solely upon stolen assets, naked force, and
the threat of force. There is no "social contract" creating a state.
Even if there were, the state would be in breach. (I know I signed no
such contract, or gave power of attorney to do so.)


Is this an illustration of the Fred Phelps argument theorem ?


  #9  
Old April 17th 06, 03:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default US Cycling Development Foundation Tax Filing Questions

Is this an illustration of the Fred Phelps argument theorem ?

Hey, I got you wondering what an argument is. Fantastic progress Don!
Congrats! You can do it!

The attribution you questioned is not the crux. The question is for
Brian to answer "whose rights were violated? Who was harmed?" If
someone's (negative) rights were violated, I'm with him.

If he's simply advocating using the "legal" power of the state to
harass because of his own suspicions and biases, then that is immoral,
or at least inappropriate. On the other hand, he has every right to
pronounce his suspicions and/or biases.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cycling related letter in SMH today ritcho Australia 20 March 13th 06 07:16 AM
Access Development Officer (Cycling) - Hampshire County Council HCC UK 27 May 31st 05 11:13 PM
published helmet research - not troll Frank Krygowski General 1927 October 24th 04 06:39 AM
Doping or not? Read this: never_doped Racing 0 August 4th 03 01:46 AM
Dumb American sportswriters vs. Cycling journalists Bruce Johnston Racing 1 July 24th 03 05:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.