Scratch, DCP, and the IRS

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: Re:

Post by _Jason Bourne »


I appreciate what you are saying, Jason. Have you read the IRS instructions for filling out the 990 form? Because I actually took the time to do so. The instructions say, unequivocally, that these kinds of relationships need to be disclosed


I have at times in the past. So I looked at this again. Are you referring to this:

Part V-A — Current Officers, Directors, Trustees, and Key Employees

List each person who was a current officer, director, trustee, or key employee (defined below) of the organization or disregarded entity described in Regulations sections 301.7701-1 through 301.7701-3 at any time during the year even if they did not receive any compensation from the organization. If person is listed in Part V-A, then list all of that person's compensation from the organization in Part V-A, whether received as a current officer, as a former officer, or in another capacity (for example, independent contractor).

For purposes of reporting all amounts in columns (B) through (E) in Part V-A, either use the organizations tax year, or the calendar year ending within such tax year.

Enter a zero in columns (B), (C), (D), or (E) if no hours were entered in column (B) and no compensation, contributions, expenses, and other allowances were paid during the reporting period, or deferred for payment to a future reporting period.

Aid in the processing of the organization's return by grouping together, preferably at the end of its list, those who received no compensation. Be careful not to repeat names.

Give the preferred address at which officers, directors, etc., want the Internal Revenue Service to contact them.

Use an attachment if there are more persons to list in Part V-A.

Show all forms of cash and noncash compensation received by each listed officer, director, etc., whether paid currently or deferred.

If the organization pays any other person, such as a management services company, for the services provided by any of its officers, directors, trustees, or key employees, report the compensation and other items in Part V-A as if the organization had paid the officers, directors, etc., directly. Also see Ann. 2001-33, 2001-17 I.R.B. 1137.

A failure to fully complete Part V-A can subject both the organization and the individuals responsible for such failure to penalties for filing an incomplete return. See General Instruction K. In particular, entering the phrase on Part V-A, “Information available upon request,” or a similar phrase, is not acceptable.

The organization may also provide an attachment to explain the entire 2007 compensation package for any person listed in Part V-A.

Each person listed in Part V-A should report the listed compensation on his or her income tax return unless the Code specifically excludes any of the payments from income tax. See Pub. 525 for details.




Please note the bolded part about paying other person such as a management services company. Is such a case it is REQUIRED to be listed as if pad to the officer even though it was not. Seems like FARM paying BYU but listing Peterson as the receptient is the correct presentation. Are you ready to concede your error here?

So, while it may very well be accurate to say that CPAs take "'creative' liberty" with the facts, the truth is that this doesn't really fall into line with what the IRS expects. What CPAs do and what the IRS expects aren't necessarily the same thing.


Looks like the CPA did it the way he was supposed to.
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Re: Scratch, DCP, and the IRS

Post by _The Nehor »

Jason, I would like to thank you for posting this. Scratch, I think an apology is in order. I won't hold my breath.

:)

(Looking forward to insane gymnastics Scratch will use to still ascribe nefarious intent. Will pop popcorn in anticipation.)
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_Yoda

Re: Scratch, DCP, and the IRS

Post by _Yoda »

Nehor wrote:(Looking forward to insane gymnastics Scratch will use to still ascribe nefarious intent. Will pop popcorn in anticipation.)


Pass the butter! LOL
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Re: Scratch, DCP, and the IRS

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

Image
One moment in annihilation's waste,
one moment, of the well of life to taste-
The stars are setting and the caravan
starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste!

-Omar Khayaam

*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: Scratch, DCP, and the IRS

Post by _bcspace »

Even I am far more dangerous to the ex/anti Mormon movement than this issue. But, say on...........
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Re: Scratch, DCP, and the IRS

Post by _The Nehor »

When does the show start? The previews are getting dull.

Scratch, where are you?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Scratch, DCP, and the IRS

Post by _harmony »

Mister Scratch wrote:Would it therefore be fair and accurate to say that you have always earned more than you have donated?


Good grief. Now that is a stupid question.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Re:

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Jason Bourne wrote:
Please note the bolded part about paying other person such as a management services company. Is such a case it is REQUIRED to be listed as if pad to the officer even though it was not. Seems like FARM paying BYU but listing Peterson as the receptient is the correct presentation. Are you ready to concede your error here?


I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, Jason. As I said earlier, I am unsure as to whether or not the FARMS accountant did anything wrong. As you'll recall, it was DCP who suggested that was the case.

So, while it may very well be accurate to say that CPAs take "'creative' liberty" with the facts, the truth is that this doesn't really fall into line with what the IRS expects. What CPAs do and what the IRS expects aren't necessarily the same thing.


Looks like the CPA did it the way he was supposed to.


Are you sure? Did you also inspect, say, the 1997 FARMS 990 form? For all I know, the CPA *did* do a good job. But, given DCP's statement that he was fired, I guess it is only fair to wonder about this a bit.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Apologetics: Why bother?

Post by _Mister Scratch »

MAsh wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Well, hey---I'm tired of the endless trash pumped out by Mopologetics.


This really sums up the raison d'être for the pseudononymous character "Mister Scratch" and his incessant character attacks on Dan Peterson.


Then how do you explain the "incessant character attacks" issue by FARMS and other Mopologetic outlets?

It's ironic that one of "Mister Scratch's" regular complaints about FARMS is that they supposedly engage in ad hominem (just do a search of this board with his name & "ad hominem" to see how many times he makes this accusation),


You deserve praise for your fine-tuned sense of irony, Brother Ash. I'm glad you "get it."
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Re: Apologetics: Why bother?

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

Mister Scratch wrote:
MAsh wrote:It's ironic that one of "Mister Scratch's" regular complaints about FARMS is that they supposedly engage in ad hominem (just do a search of this board with his name & "ad hominem" to see how many times he makes this accusation),


You deserve praise for your fine-tuned sense of irony, Brother Ash. I'm glad you "get it."

Am I to understand, then, that Mister Scratch's modus operandi is nothing but a parody of what he believes the FARMS Review does? In this view, Scratch doesn't actually buy into all the arguments he makes, but rather writes what he thinks is a good depiction of what the FR does?
One moment in annihilation's waste,
one moment, of the well of life to taste-
The stars are setting and the caravan
starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste!

-Omar Khayaam

*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*
Post Reply