Scratch, DCP, and the IRS

[_Daniel Peterson]

But that's not what it says on the tax form, Prof. P. Rollo kindly linked it above, why don't you take a look?

Because I really don't care what a ten-year-old IRS form says, especially as it's interpreted by Mini-Scartch (who loves me) and by you, my malevolent stalker.

I know that I wasn't paid $20,400, nor anything like thereunto, as chairman of the FARMS board.

This is not something that I need to prove to myself, and I'm not at all disposed to lift a finger in a vain attempt to satisfy you.

Again: your claims just aren't adding up.

They make perfect sense to me, and seem to satisfy a number of others here.

It's scarcely to be wondered at, though, that residents of the Scartcholeptic colony prefer to view me as a liar and a scoundrel. After all, that's what defines Scartcholepsy. (Poor artichoke8, though. He really needs help.)

If what you say is true, then you'll need to explain how you all-of-the-sudden received a 20K "windfall" for serving as "Board Chair" of FARMS. Since, you know, you've been doing METI for all these years without any apparent fluctuation in the distribution of your salary.

As I understand it, the Maxwell Institute continues to transfer money to Asian and Near Eastern Languages each year to compensate it for my reduced teaching load. There's been no "windfall." And there certainly hasn't been one to me.

Well, then, the 20K was partly for Mopologetics.

No it wasn't. It was for my work on METI. Have I mentioned that METI has no connection whatever with apologetics? None.

Which means, in turn, that a portion of your salary was devoted to Mopologetics.

No it doesn't. The money was for my work on METI. Have I mentioned that METI has no connection whatever with apologetics? None.

How do you know? Was this listed in your contract or tax documents somewhere?

Like every other faculty member at BYU, I file an annual performance report with my department chairman and have an annual performance review with him and subsequently receive an annual performance evaluation from him.

I know what I'm expected to do, and I do it. Traveling with Ed Snow is never mentioned.

Correction: it was for being "Board Chair" of FARMS. Cf. the document.

Either the document is wrong or your interpretation of the document is wrong.

I was never paid $20,000.00, nor anything like thereunto, for serving as chairman of the FARMS board.

(Have I mentioned this before?)

I founded METI in early 1993. I still direct it and edit its publications.

Again: how does that explain the massive windfall of 20K on the 1998 tax form? Why, all of the sudden, would FARMS pay out 20K for your work on METI?

There was no "windfall."

I never saw any extra cash, and whatever money my department received had to be paid out to hire a replacement for me. In fact, the amount that was paid to my department was calculated precisely on the basis of what was required to hire such a replacement.

At some point -- I don't remember the precise year off the top of my head -- it was decided that the work of METI had become sufficiently time-consuming and demanding that I needed to get time off from teaching in order to handle it. It was at that point that what is now the Maxwell Institute decided to buy my time from Asian and Near Eastern Languages so that I could devote that time to METI.

Prove it.

I don't have to prove a thing to you.

Put your own tax returns up on the board. Post your contract (if you're employed). Share your bills and your receipts with the panting masses.

I'm not interested, but maybe some of the other Scartcholeptics will find it fascinating.

The more we dig into this affair, the more your story continues to crumble.

Let's see. You've got poor artichoke8 on your side -- he's actually more Catholic than the pope on this one, I think (speaking Scartchily) -- and you've got Mini-Scartch.

What a surprise.

I see no crumbling, and it doesn't seem than any of the other non-Scartcholeptics do.

Could it really be that you have been flat-out lying to us all this time?

Nope.

You're just a malevolent loon. That's all.

[_Jason Bourne]

We also have the 1998 Form 990, which says otherwise.


I don't, particularly given a pulbic document filed by FARMS under oath and penalties of perjury.

Rollo

Have you ever prepared a tax return? Have you reviewed one prepared for your business or for a NFP you may be involved in? Are you a business person? Tax forms are complex. They have lots of information. Often the accountant being paid to prepare such forms is under a major deadline and may be working on one of dozens of such filings in that all must be complete is short period of time. Mistakes can be made. Judgment calls at times on how to treat things and answer questions. IRS understands this. You act as if someone makes an error on a tax filing they are going to jail. Your constant reference to the document being filed under oath and penalties and perjury is frankly naïve. I have done the best I can to explain the return to you in plausible ways based on what Dr Peterson has said here. Frankly you are calling him a liar. He says he did not get the money and it was paid to BYU. I showed the requirement that when such payments for a chairman's time is paid to another organization it is REQUIRED TO BE LISTED AS PAID TO THE CHAIRMAN. You are hanging your hat on one question. You think this is simple? Here are the intructions to schedule A. I will even help you out and highlight the one item that might, MIGHT note you, be construed to refer to payment to BYU for Dr Peterson's time. Note there is nothing that says payments for salary, only for expenses reimbursed by either organization. Also one must sift through these arcane instructions to decide whether one is dealing with a related or unrelated non Charitable exempt organizations.

Part VII—Information Regarding
Transfers To and Transactions
and Relationships With
Noncharitable Exempt
Organizations
Part VII is used to report on:
 Direct and indirect transfers to (line 51a),
 Direct and indirect transactions with (line
51b),
 Relationships with (line 52)
any other noncharitable exempt organization
(section 6033(b)(9)).
A “noncharitable exempt organization” is an
organization exempt under section 501(c) (that
is not exempt under section 501(c)(3)), or a
political organization described in section 527.
For purposes of these instructions, the
section 501(c)(3) organization completing this
Schedule A (Form 990) is referred to as the
“reporting organization.”
A noncharitable exempt organization is
related to or affiliated with the reporting
organization if:
1. The two organizations share some
element of common control or
2. A historic and continuing relationship
exists between the two organizations.
A noncharitable exempt organization is
unrelated to the reporting organization if:
1. The two organizations share no element
of common control and
2. A historic and continuing relationship
does not exist between the two organizations.
An “element of common control” is present
when one or more of the officers, directors, or
trustees of one organization are elected or
appointed by the officers, directors, trustees,
or members of the other. An element of
common control is also present when more
than 25% of the officers, directors, or trustees
of one organization serve as officers, directors,
or trustees of the other organization.
A “historic and continuing relationship” exists
when two organizations participate in a joint
effort to work in concert toward the attainment
of one or more common purposes on a
continuous or recurring basis rather than on the
basis of one or several isolated transactions
or activities. Such a relationship also exists
when two organizations share facilities,
equipment, or paid personnel during the year,
regardless of the length of time the
arrangement is in effect.
Line 51. Reporting of certain transfers and
transactions. Except as provided below,
report on line 51 any transfer to or transaction
with a noncharitable exempt organization even
if the transfer or transaction constitutes the only
connection with the noncharitable exempt
organization.
Related organizations. If the noncharitable
exempt organization is related to or affiliated
with the reporting organization, report all direct
and indirect transfers and transactions except
for contributions and grants received by the
reporting organization.
Unrelated organizations. All transfers from
the reporting organization to an unrelated
noncharitable exempt organization must be
reported on line 51a. All transactions between
the reporting organization and an unrelated
noncharitable exempt organization must be
shown on line 51b unless they meet the
exception in the specific instructions for that
line.
Line 51a. Transfers. Answer “Yes” to lines
51a(i) and 51a(ii) if the reporting organization
made any direct or indirect transfers of any
value to a noncharitable exempt organization.
A “transfer” is any transaction or
arrangement whereby one organization
transfers something of value (cash, other
assets, services, use of property, etc.) to
another organization without receiving
something of more than nominal value in
return. Contributions, gifts, and grants are
examples of transfers.
If the only transfers between the two
organizations were contributions and grants
made by the noncharitable exempt
organization to the reporting organization,
answer “No.”
Line 51b. Other transactions. Answer “Yes”
for any transaction described in lines 51b(i)
through (vi), regardless of its amount, if it is
with a related or affiliated organization.
Unrelated organizations. Answer “Yes” for
any transaction between the reporting
organization and an unrelated noncharitable
exempt organization, regardless of its amount,
if the reporting organization received less than
adequate consideration. There is adequate
consideration where the fair market value of the
goods, other assets or services furnished by
the reporting organization is not more than the
fair market value of the goods, other assets or
services received from the unrelated
noncharitable exempt organization. The
“exception” described below does not apply to
transactions for less than adequate
consideration.
Answer “Yes” for any transaction, including
transfers for adequate consideration, between
the reporting organization and an unrelated
noncharitable exempt organization if the
amount involved is more than $500. The
“amount involved” is the fair market value of the
goods, services, or other assets furnished by
the reporting organization.
Exception. If a transaction with an unrelated
noncharitable exempt organization was for
adequate consideration and the amount
involved was $500 or less, it is not necessary
to answer “Yes” for that transaction.
Line 51b(iii). Answer “Yes” for transactions in
which the reporting organization was either the
lessor or the lessee.
Line 51b(iv). Answer “Yes” if either
organization reimbursed expenses incurred by
the other.
Line 51b(v). Answer “Yes” if either
organization made loans to the other or if the
reporting organization guaranteed the other's
loans.
Line 51b(vi). Answer “Yes” if either
organization performed services or
membership or fundraising solicitations for the
other.
Line 51c. Complete line 51c regardless of
whether the noncharitable exempt organization
is related to or closely affiliated with the
reporting organization. For the purposes of this
line, “facilities” includes office space and any
other land, building, or structure whether
owned or leased by, or provided free of charge
to, the reporting organization or the
noncharitable exempt organization.
Line 51d. Use this schedule to describe the
transfers and transactions for which you
entered “Yes” on lines 51a through 51c above.
You must describe each transfer or transaction
for which you answered “Yes.” You may
combine all of the cash transfers (line 51a(i))
to each organization into a single entry.
Otherwise, make a separate entry for each
transfer or transaction.
Column (a). For each entry, enter the line
number from lines 51a through 51c. For
example, if you answered “Yes” to line 51b(iii),
enter “b(iii)” in column (a).
Column (d). If you need more space, write
“see attached” in column (d) and use an
attached sheet for your description. If you are
making more than one entry on line 51d,
specify, on the attached sheet, which transfer
or transaction you are describing.
Line 52. Reporting of certain relationships.
Enter on line 52 each noncharitable exempt
organization to or with which the reporting
organization is related, or affiliated, as defined
above. If the control factor or the historic and
continuing relationship factor (or both) is
present at any time during the year, you must
identify the organization on line 52 even if
neither factor is present at the end of the year.
Do not enter unrelated noncharitable exempt
organizations on line 52 even if you report
transfers to or transactions with those
organizations on line 51. For example, if you
reported a one-time transfer to an unrelated
noncharitable exempt organization on line
51a(ii), you should not list the organization on
line 52.
Column (b). Enter the exempt category of
the organization; for example, “501(c)(4).”
Column (c). In most cases, a simple
description, such as “common directors” or
“auxiliary of reporting organization” will be
sufficient. If you need more space, write “see
attached” in column (c) and use a separate
sheet to describe the relationship. If you list
more than one organization on line 52, identify
which organization you are describing on the
attached sheet.

Now Rollo get this and pay attention here. It is quite diificult and takes some leg work. I also bolded what type or organization this section requires reporting transactions with. THis is ONLY for transaction with NON Charitable Exempt organization. Well what the heck is that? The instructions sort of tell us. Let me copy it again here:

A “noncharitable exempt organization” is an
organization exempt under section 501(c) (that
is not exempt under section 501(c)(3)), or a
political organization described in section 527.

So is BYU a noncharitable exempt organization? Can you answer that from reading the form alone that you say is plaine English. Try it. Tell me now. Is BYU a noncharitable exempt organization? Well the instructions give us a clue. It says any organization exempt under Section 501(c) that is not a 501(c)(3) organization or one that is a 527 organization. Well BYU is not a 527 organization so we are ok there. But is it a 501(c)(3) or not. If it is then it seems that reimbursed expenses could include payment to BYU for Peterson's time

So what say you Rollo? Do you know? Can you tell from the plain English on the form alone? Well let me help you here and let's read IRC Sec. 501(c)(3):

IRC Sec 501(c)
(c) List of exempt organizations

The following organizations are referred to in subsection (a):
(1) Any corporation organized under Act of Congress which is an instrumentality of the United States but only if such corporation—
(A) is exempt from Federal income taxes—
(i) under such Act as amended and supplemented before July 18, 1984, or
(ii) under this title without regard to any provision of law which is not contained in this title and which is not contained in a revenue Act, or
(B) is described in subsection (l).

(2) Corporations organized for the exclusive purpose of holding title to property, collecting income therefrom, and turning over the entire amount thereof, less expenses, to an organization which itself is exempt under this section. Rules similar to the rules of subparagraph (G) of paragraph (25) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph.

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

Well lo and behold!! BYU is a 501(c)(3)! Thus it does not fall under the requirement of Form 990 Sch A PT VII. Answering these questions no is quite fine even if FARMS paid BYU thousands and thousands because this section does noto require disclosure of such payments to 501(c)(3)'s of which BYU is one.

So IF Dr Peterson is telling the truth and the $20,400 was paid to BYU it was properly reported as if paid to Dr Peterson as required by the instructions. AND Sch A is also anwered appropriatly with NO's for the various questions.

See Rollo, as I said, Tax forms are not simple and plain English often is not enough. There is a whole set of definitions, terms and phraseology.

I submit now that assuming we can trust Dr Peterson he did not get the money directly, it was paid to BYU and the Form 990 is prepared correctly at least regarding this item.

[_Jason Bourne]

Anyway, you're wrong. If the $20K is what I think it was, it was "funneled back into BYU" -- which is to say, it was transferred in a very routine manner from one BYU entity to another -- in order to help the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages "be kept alive." My time was purchased from my department so that I could devote it to directing and editing the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative. Since my department still had to teach the classes that I taught even though I would not be available to teach them, it was only fair that (what is now) the Maxwell Institute compensate my department for the loss of my services.

(emphasis added; this is from page 1 of this same thread)[/quote]

You see, Jason: I try to get the straight story, and DCP flips back and forth, changing his tune, and jerking all of us around. I can appreciate you wanting him to get a fair shake, but I think that you will have to admit, in all fairness, that he just hasn't been forthright about all of this

Well Scratch since this is simply a discussion board an often things are typed rapidly I think someone can use department at BYU and BYU interchangeably. He does say funneled back to BYU initially before he talks about helping his department and he says "I think" as well. I don't know. Maybe Dr Peterson really did get the cash and is lying away and maybe he did not even report it on his Form 1040 for the year. Stranger things have happened. But somehow, I just doubt it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well done, Jason.

Nonetheless, I have no doubt that the Scartch will beat on.

[_Jason Bourne]

I'm afraid you are going to have a to take a hike, Jersey. The IRS documents say that he was paid for being "Chair of FARMS." DCP may very well have worked on the "specific project," but the official documentation states that he was paid to be "Chair of FARMS."

Careful here Scratch. As you can now see the Form 990 is neither simple nor easy to understand. I have now demonstrated that if the money was pair to BYU the Form 990 is prepared appropriately even if Dr Peterson never touched a dime.

Feel free to pick apart my post that weeds through the instructions and IRC. Good luck though. You will need it.

[_Jason Bourne]

Here is the link to the 1998 Form 990 (with Schedule A) filed by FARMS (the Part VIII I'm referring to is on page 12 of the 20-page document):

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/1 ... 60-1-9.pdf

Are you talking about the Schedule of Grants & Allocations or the Compensation of Officers? I don't see a "Part VIII".[/quote]


It is actually Part VII of Schedule A that he is referring too.

[_Mister Scratch]

Well lo and behold!! BYU is a 501(c)(3)! Thus it does not fall under the requirement of Form 990 Sch A PT VII. Answering these questions no is quite fine even if FARMS paid BYU thousands and thousands because this section does noto require disclosure of such payments to 501(c)(3)'s of which BYU is one.

Jason,

Please forgive me if I have missed something, but where in the text you posted does it say that 501(c)(3) organizations aren't required to disclose payments? (Further, how does this square with the fact that the actual 990 form *does*, in fact, disclose a number of "grants" "honoraria," and the like?)

[_Daniel Peterson]

If the consensus of Bizarro Scartchworld is that FARMS and/or the villainous DCP has engaged in felonious federal tax fraud or, even, has failed to file accurate tax forms with the IRS, one of the more lucid Scartcholeptics should be nominated to lodge a complaint with the IRS or, at least, to alert the IRS to the situation:

http://www.irs.gov/

A public judgment against BYU and/or against me would discredit me forever and would seriously damage the image of FARMS. It would be a major victory over the forces of unscrupulous cruelty and professional mendacity incarnated in the villainous DCP and watershed moment even among the many watershed moments that have been pointed out for the history of Mopologetics. (And think how gratifying it would be if I got jail time!)

Go for it!

If, however, the consensus is merely that I'm a chronic liar incapable of telling the truth, I guess the best we can hope for is more of the same . . . forever and ever and ever and ever, even if the ostensible subject changes from time to time. (Yawn.)

[_Mister Scratch]

But that's not what it says on the tax form, Prof. P. Rollo kindly linked it above, why don't you take a look?

Because I really don't care what a ten-year-old IRS form says

By this logic, one can read messageboard reviews of FARMS Review and know that it is a vindictive piece of trash.

I know that I wasn't paid $20,400, nor anything like thereunto, as chairman of the FARMS board.

This is not something that I need to prove to myself, and I'm not at all disposed to lift a finger in a vain attempt to satisfy you.

You don't need to prove it. The official IRS document proves it quite nicely.

If what you say is true, then you'll need to explain how you all-of-the-sudden received a 20K "windfall" for serving as "Board Chair" of FARMS. Since, you know, you've been doing METI for all these years without any apparent fluctuation in the distribution of your salary.

As I understand it, the Maxwell Institute continues to transfer money to Asian and Near Eastern Languages each year to compensate it for my reduced teaching load. There's been no "windfall." And there certainly hasn't been one to me.

How do you account for the fluctuation?

Well, then, the 20K was partly for Mopologetics.

No it wasn't. It was for my work on METI. Have I mentioned that METI has no connection whatever with apologetics? None.

There is no proof, beyond your word, that the 20K was for METI. Given that you have lied and/or equivocated a number of times on the boards, I see you reason to believe you.

Which means, in turn, that a portion of your salary was devoted to Mopologetics.

No it doesn't. The money was for my work on METI. Have I mentioned that METI has no connection whatever with apologetics? None.

Did you function as Board Chair in addition to your work on METI? Or is the tax form in error?

How do you know? Was this listed in your contract or tax documents somewhere?

Like every other faculty member at BYU, I file an annual performance report with my department chairman and have an annual performance review with him and subsequently receive an annual performance evaluation from him.

I know what I'm expected to do, and I do it. Traveling with Ed Snow is never mentioned.

*Of course* it is never mentioned. No doubt this is by design.

Correction: it was for being "Board Chair" of FARMS. Cf. the document.

Either the document is wrong or your interpretation of the document is wrong.

Since you are too lazy and afraid to view the document, you'll have to assume I'm right, I'm afraid.

I was never paid $20,000.00, nor anything like thereunto, for serving as chairman of the FARMS board.

No, really? It's already been established that your home department was paid 20K so that you could be Board Chair of FARMS. Thus, a "part of your salary" was actually for your service on the Board of FARMS.

I never saw any extra cash, and whatever money my department received had to be paid out to hire a replacement for me. In fact, the amount that was paid to my department was calculated precisely on the basis of what was required to hire such a replacement.

This doesn't change the fact that a portion of your salary was given over to your duties as Board Chair.

At some point -- I don't remember the precise year off the top of my head -- it was decided that the work of METI had become sufficiently time-consuming and demanding that I needed to get time off from teaching in order to handle it. It was at that point that what is now the Maxwell Institute decided to buy my time from Asian and Near Eastern Languages so that I could devote that time to METI.

What are we talking about? One year? Multiple years?

The more we dig into this affair, the more your story continues to crumble.

I see no crumbling, and it doesn't seem than any of the other non-Scartcholeptics do.

Oh, yes, you do. Which is why you are reticent to look at the form, and to cough up specific details.

Could it really be that you have been flat-out lying to us all this time?

Nope.

You're just a malevolent loon. That's all.

Why don't we post all this material on the Recovery Board? They get many thousands more viewers over there. Surely there is a tax-person who frequents the site. Maybe s/he will be able to get to the bottom of this. At the very least, I'm sure that many there would be interested to know that the "Board Chair" of FARMS was paid over twenty grand.

[_harmony]

And the beat goes on... and on... and on... and on... ad nauseum...

REPORT HIM for tax fraud! Get him off the streets! Show some balls and call that 800 number!

Good grief.