Where am I and what am I doing in this handbasket?
It's not so much how much you get paid that concerns me (I've seen the CEO's job, and quite frankly, I don't want it [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] ). It's what you do to earn your salary that concerns me.
Quite frankly, those salaries could have been cut in half, and I would still be disappointed with the results.
Definition of "Horse": a 4 legged mammal looking for an inconvenient place and expensive way to die. Any day they choose not to execute the Master Plan is just more time to perfect it. Be Very Afraid.
may be ignored, but is HIGH on the IRS's list of things to examine. They call it "Intermediate Sanctions" I find especially interesting the three IRS criteria found near the bottom.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> About Intermediate Sanctions Note: The following discussion is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to serve as legal or tax advice. For specific information about excise taxes on excess benefit transactions ("intermediate sanctions"), consult your attorney or tax adviser.
Intermediate sanctions, known formally as "excise taxes on excess benefit transactions," are fines that the Internal Revenue Service imposes when particular individuals associated with a tax-exempt organization receive compensation or benefits that exceed the value of services, goods, or donations they have provided the organization.
Intermediate sanctions fall under Section 4958 of the Internal Revenue Code and can be levied on excess benefit transactions that occurred on or after September 14, 1995.
Congress created intermediate sanctions on July 30, 1996, as part of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2. Before then, the IRS had only two ways to respond to excess benefit transactions: (1) ignore the transgression or (2) revoke the nonprofit's tax-exempt status.
In many cases, revoking an organization's nonprofit status was seen as too severe a penality, partially because it punished innocent parties in the organization and the people the nonprofit served. Ignoring excess benefits transactions was equally unsatisfactory, however. Intermediate sanctions fall between the two extremes and penalize the offenders rather than the entire organization and its beneficiaries.
On January 10, 2001, the Treasury Department issued temporary regulations relating to intermediate sanctions; the temporary regulations will remain in force through January 9, 2004.
Individuals Affected by Intermediate Sanctions
Only persons who are "in a position to exercise substantial influence over the affairs of" a 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization and their family members are subject to intermediate sanctions. The law terms such individuals "disqualified persons." They include, but are not limited to:
A nonprofit organization's founder, president, chief executive officer, chief operating officer, treasurer, and chief financial officer
Voting members of a nonprofit's governing body
Persons with more than 35 percent of a nonprofit organization's combined voting power, profits, or beneficial interests
A disqualified person's spouse
A disqualified person's siblings, ancestors, children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and their spouses
Organization managers who "knowingly, willfully, and without reasonable cause" participate in an excess benefit transaction can also be subject to intermediate sanctions.
Amount of Penalty
For disqualified persons, the excise tax for each excess benefit transaction is 25 percent of the amount over the true value of the services or item. An additional 200 percent can be charged if the excess benefit is not corrected by a certain date.
Organization managers who "knowingly, willfully, and without reasonable cause" participate in an excess benefit transaction are liable for 10 percent of the excess, not to exceed $10,000 per transaction.
The regulations define three criteria that can be used to establish that a transaction was not an excess benefit transaction:
The transaction was approved in advance by an authorized body of the nonprofit organization composed of individuals who do not have a conflict of interest
The authorized body obtained and relied upon appropriate data, such as a compensation study or proof of fair market value, as to comparability before making its decision
The authorized body adequately documented the basis for its determination at the time it made its decision.
If these criteria are met, it becomes the IRS's responsibility to prove that an excess benefit transaction was made.
For More Information
Steven T. Miller, director of Exempt Organizations at the IRS, has written an analysis of the intermediate sanction regulations. It is available on the IRS Web site at http://www.irs.gov/bus_info/eo/m4958art.pdf.
A thorough discussion about intermediate sanctions, including examples of what is and is not an excess benefit transaction and who is and is not considered a disqualified person, precedes the temporary regulations in the Federal Register. The discussion and the regulations are available on the U.S. Government Printing Office Web site at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...r10ja01-31.pdf. (The document may take a few minutes to load.)
Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2. U.S. Statutes at Large 110 (1452-1481.)
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. 26 CFR Parts 53, 301 and 602: Excise Taxes on Excess Benefit Transactions; Final Rule and Proposed Rule. Federal Register 66, no. 7 (January 10, 2001): 2144-2172.
Suzanne E. Coffman, June 2001
ï¿½ 2001, Philanthropic Research, Inc.
co-author of 101 Jumping Exercises & The Rider's Fitness Program; Soon to come: Dead Ringer - a tale of equine mystery and intrique! Former Moderator!
Just a reminder, folks... you are welcome to post facts (see the BB rules for definition of a "fact" [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] ) and you're welcome to express an opinion about facts that others have presented.
But the direction some of these threads are taking isn't really sitting too well with me. Remember, no allegations of wrongdoing are allowed on the BB unless they've appeared in print, or charges have been filed in court.
There's a LOT of information on Guidestar about both USET and AHSA. Please, let's keep discussion to concrete information like that.
So far this thread has had invaluable references and information and many people have benefited from finding out they CAN have access to information and there ARE regulations governing how non-profits handle their business. Opinions about whether people feel salaries are appropriate for the job performed are important when it's a organization that involves a sport we all are involved with. Perhaps if the information were open and discussed in years past - the matters wouldn't be so shocking and would have come with justification for the business decisions governing them. Or...the lack thereof.
As I said, opinions are fine. As are discussions of documented facts.
What makes me uneasy are the "I heard..." and "Supposedly..." type references. I don't want these threads to be seen as invitations to air every rumor anyone has ever heard about officials at the USET.
I've been following all the threads carefully, and haven't seen anything that I think necessitates editing or deleting... yet. But I just wanted to remind everyone that they need to be sure anything they post is within the BB guidelines.
I'll bump up the last post on BB rules, for those who aren't familiar with them.
The AHSA doesn't report anyone receiving over $100k in direct compensation in 1998 (which is listed as the 1999 return on Guidestar). The highest paid employee is Dr. Lengel, the vet running the drugs & meds program, at $93,724.
Also interesting is that the USET reports approximately $200,000 in legal expenses for that year. I'm not sure for what. The AHSA reports around $600,000 - however, as a regulatory body, I would expect that they would need a fair amount of legal advice related to rule violations and drug & med programs.
Buried in the attachments (page 14 of the PDF) of the USET return is the names of all the athletes receiving grants, and the amount. I think it's interesting that only occasionally do multiple athletes receive the same amount, and that the amounts vary rather wildly, with some getting around $25,000, some at $12,000, and a few at $35,000. The total to 27 athletes listed is $794,474. I imagine some of the difference is due to grants that were earmarked for specific athletes by the donor.
If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Erin:
What makes me uneasy are the "I heard..." and "Supposedly..." type references. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I for one would like to sincerely thank you Erin and all of you contributing to this thread. I'm expecting my husband to file for divorce any day now because I can't seem to stop logging on to TCOTH BBs!
Saying as my family has received calls from Team supporters asking if any of us know who Bostonian is - I can only imagine that - as administrator of this thread - you might be under a bit of pressure to keep this discussion within the parameters set by your rules.
With that said, I would like to add that before your post from guidestar.com, I had only heard (from reliable sources) that the Team's executives were supposedly making such large salaries.
Moreover, nobody would care if their professional performance indeed justified such INCREDIBLE compensation (annual INCREASE in membership/funding), or if they weren't forcing USA Equestrian to spend its members charitable contributions to DEFEND their status as our Country's NGB.
As so many have remarked, they brought this kind of discussion on themselves.
It seems to me that the owners are really the ones who are getting the benefits. The money from the USET reduces their cost while improving their profits for the sale of the horse.
I'd also like to see a break-down of the percentages that are used for management and supervision versus that for participation by the athletes. It seems to me that if each athlete is actually a trainer who was selected by an owner they require less supervision and coaching than if it were a team of neophytes. That would remove the need for extensive costs at the top management level.
Those figures regarding the amount for each athlete are most interesting and may give us a key to understanding the structure of the present USET.