Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:56:00 -0700
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
To: llg-board@lojban.org
Message-ID: <20120628195559.GK392@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: llg-board@lojban.org
References: <CABo9M2xj4mrJWCgbBr1=p3ab5eoAiRM8-rBsEyYmdC+GfzbLxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FEA2469.1040201@lojban.org>
 <20120626215146.GN392@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
 <4FEACD84.7040708@wakelift.de>
 <20120627210914.GA392@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
 <4FEC888B.6050402@lojban.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4FEC888B.6050402@lojban.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: [llg-board] Paying Robin
Precedence: list
Reply-To: llg-board@lojban.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: llg-board-bounces@lojban.org

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:38:35PM -0400, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> 
> >I wish to make it clear that I have not, and do not intend to,
> >explore the tax or legal implications of paying him; he's an
> >independent contractor responsible for his own taxation as far as
> >I'm concerned.  If the IRS hunts us down, you can call it my
> >fault. If that's a problem, then we need to find someone to do
> >that research, but honestly, the worst *possible* case is that we
> >owe the IRS a bit of money; no-one's going to jail over this kind
> >of cash.
> 
> They didn't complain about the last time, so I see no reason to
> handle things differently this time.
> 
> Now, with regard to paying Robin, I would support that even more
> strongly in terms of benefit to the organization, but because he
> is a director and an officer, it becomes harder to pretend he is
> an "independent contractor".

It's very true.

My plan was to have people *not* pay the LLG, but rather pay me
directly; at that point the resulting tax evasion becomes my own
problem.  :P

> I know that there were relevant rules I had to respond to when we
> made the original 501(c)(3) tax exemption filing, but that was
> more than 20 years ago, and I am not sure of the details.  I think
> they had to do with no more than some X percentage of our income
> inuring to the benefit of an officer or director.  Someone needs
> to reread the rules, and probably someone in addition to Robin
> (which probably means me, lucky guy).  No going to jail is likely
> over such a thing, but we don't want to lose the tax exemption,
> either.

Agreed.

> I suspect that there would be no problem.  I know JCB paid himself
> a chunk of money from TLI as an "employee", IIRC because he needed
> a few more quarters to qualify for social security.  On the other
> hand, I'm not sure that I want to hold up JCB's management of TLI
> as an exemplar of business ethics.

*snrk*

So are you committing to actually doing said reading?  If so, can I
get a realistic time frame?

-Robin

-- 
http://singinst.org/ :  Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
.i ko na cpedu lo nu stidi vau loi jbopre .i danfu lu na go'i li'u .e
lu go'i li'u .i ji'a go'i lu na'e go'i li'u .e lu go'i na'i li'u .e
lu no'e go'i li'u .e lu to'e go'i li'u .e lu lo mamta be do cu sofybakni li'u

_______________________________________________
llg-board mailing list
llg-board@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-board