Red Cross Donation via amazon.com

#35 09-22-2005, 03:11 AM

- quote -

> > What? If you win at appeals IRS pays your fee? Never heard
> > of that.

> I was getting ahead of myself here. If appeals denied the
> claim and we went on to court, the IRS would have pay my
> fees, because the IRS would be taking a position against
> published authority.

Yep. I agree.

But for a moment you had me going; thinking I might have a
potential additional source of revenue.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

#34 09-21-2005, 06:13 AM

- quote -

> What? If you win at appeals IRS pays your fee? Never heard
> of that.

I was getting ahead of myself here. If appeals denied the
claim and we went on to court, the IRS would have pay my
fees, because the IRS would be taking a position against
published authority.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

#33 09-21-2005, 05:53 AM

Harlan Lunsford <hlunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

> cballard[at]tyyni.net wrote:

> > I'd be very willing to take this sort of case before the
> > appeals office, because the IRS would be paying my fees for
> > the client after we win.

> What? If you win at appeals IRS pays your fee? Never heard
> of that.

At least in litigation the IRS can be forced to pay
litigation fees if their position was not "substantially
justified."

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

#32 09-20-2005, 02:32 PM

cballard[at]tyyni.net wrote:
- quote -

> Harlan Lunsford wrote:
> > cballard[at]tyyni.net wrote:

> > > > Are you willing to represent a client before IRS on that?

> > > Yes, I would be willing to represent a client before the IRS
> > > on that, as long as there was a clear understanding between
> > > the parties that the funds were earmarked for the use of the
> > > Red Cross. This is analogous to setting up a charitable
> > > trust, with Amazon acting as the trustee and the Red Cross
> > > being the sole beneficiary. I don't think there would be
> > > any problem prevailing in this situation as long as there is
> > > no mechanism for a donor to get his or her money back after
> > > it has been transferred to Amazon for the benefit of the Red
> > > Cross.

> > It may be analogous to setting up a trust, but it just is
> > not the same thing. No IRS agent in his right mind will
> > allow, nor an appeals officer will allow, such.

> Maybe the agents and appeals officers wouldn't, but the IRS
> seems pretty willing to go along with the concept: Take a
> look at Revenue Ruling 2002-67.
> A charity entered into an agreement with a for-profit
> company under which the company would act as the charity's
> agent to: (1) solicit donations of used cars, (2) accept,
> process, and sell the cars, and (3) transfer the sales
> proceeds to the charity, after deducting a fee. The
> company's activities were subject to the charity's review
> and approval. Because the agreement established a valid
> agency relationship under state law, a transfer to the
> company was treated as a transfer to the charity.
> The IRS also ruled here that the agent can provide the
> acknowledgment on behalf of the donee organization. The IRS
> concluded that, where a for-profit company was authorized to
> act as a charity's agent in administering the charity's car
> donation program, a written acknowledgment provided by the
> company satisfied the requirement that the acknowledgment be
> made by the donee organization.

Sure, I know about how that is done. I'm wondering, though,
whether Amazon.com entered into a similar agreement. IF so,
I would defend my client before IRS.

- quote -

> I'd be very willing to take this sort of case before the
> appeals office, because the IRS would be paying my fees for
> the client after we win.

What? If you win at appeals IRS pays your fee? Never heard
of that.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

#31 09-17-2005, 12:19 AM

Harlan Lunsford <hlunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

> D.F. Manno wrote:

> > You based your decision on which agency to donate to on
> > which had the better PR?

> Nope; not atall. Two reasons:
> 1. Like General Nathan Bedford Forrest, they "got there
> the fustest with the mostest."
> 2. I favor Salvation Army if for no other reason, Target
> STores (French owned company) kicked their kettles out at
> Christmas time.

The Salvation Army is a church. Letting them raise money on
Target property left Target open to demands from every
two-bit preacher and bible-thumper for miles around for
permission to shake down^W^W solicit donations from
customers.

BTW, Target is about as French as freedom fries. The company
is based in Minneapolis and has no operations outside the
U.S.

--
D.F. Manno | dfm2a3l0t2[at]spymac.com
The worst government is the most moral. One composed of
cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics
are on top there is no limit to oppression.--H.L. Mencken,
"Minority Report" (1956)

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

#30 09-16-2005, 11:41 PM

Harlan Lunsford wrote:
- quote -

> A.G. Kalman wrote:
> > Harlan Lunsford wrote:

> > [snip]

> > > But.... the Salvation Army administrative expenses are less.

> > The only data I have ever seen on the subject of admin
> > expense comes from the annual reports for both the Salvation
> > Army (SA) and the Red Cross (RC).
> > > The SA reported in their 2003 report that 83 cents of every
> > dollar spent went to direct services to the public. The RC
> > reported in its 2004 report that they spent 91.1 cents out
> > of every dollar on public services. The remainder was spent
> > on G&A and fund raising.

> That's enlightening, Alan; thanks.
> However, let's not compare apples to oranges, i.e. one's
> 2003 report with another's 2004 report. Each organization
> has both fixed expenses and variable expenditures, the
> latter taking up the major portion of public service
> expenditures. In 2004 I think it was, there was a tsunami
> and the Red Cross probably spent more than the Salvation
> army on this disaster.

The RC numbers are the same for 2003 and 2004 (91 cents).
Here are the 2003 numbers. RC year ends 6/30 and SA ends
9/30.

Operating Expenses In Cents per Dollar. Everything else
falls under public services of one kind or another.

RC SA
Fund Raising 3.6 4.8
Mgt & General 5.2 11.6

I do know that the RC numbers include $40M of R&D that is
carried in Biomedical Services. If you want to exclude that
amount from public services, it's about 1.3 cents out of
every dollar.

I "think" that one of the contributing factors to the RC
having a much lower M&G expense per dollar spent is that the
RC has a very large number of volunteers providing M&G
services as compared to the SA.

--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

#29 09-16-2005, 11:02 PM

Vic Dura wrote:
- quote -

> Herb Smith" <smithff33[at]aol.com
> > Why not? The "gift" to the children does not meet the
> > definition of a true gift, as there are strings attached
> > (put in collection plate). The parents have never lost
> > control of the money -- it's actually their donation to the
> > church.

> Speaking of "string" on donations, how do the big donors
> make the million$ donations to universities, hospitals, etc
> to be use for specified purposes such as establishing a
> "chair" in English, or whatever? I can't believe these big
> donors would accept a forfeit of deductibility in such
> cases.

Difference is that they are contributing to th establishment
of a particular phase of an activity, and not to a
particular person.

ChEAr$,
Harlan

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

#28 09-16-2005, 10:43 PM

Vic Dura <vpdura[at]CLUTTERhiwaay.net> wrote:

- quote -

> Speaking of "string" on donations, how do the big donors
> make the million$ donations to universities, hospitals, etc
> to be use for specified purposes such as establishing a
> "chair" in English, or whatever? I can't believe these big
> donors would accept a forfeit of deductibility in such
> cases.

Gifts can be made so that, if not properly used repayment
can be required. They are able to get away with strings in
the first place if the use is within the organization's
exempt purpose.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

#27 09-16-2005, 10:43 PM

Harlan Lunsford wrote:
- quote -

> cballard[at]tyyni.net wrote:

> > > Are you willing to represent a client before IRS on that?

> > Yes, I would be willing to represent a client before the IRS
> > on that, as long as there was a clear understanding between
> > the parties that the funds were earmarked for the use of the
> > Red Cross. This is analogous to setting up a charitable
> > trust, with Amazon acting as the trustee and the Red Cross
> > being the sole beneficiary. I don't think there would be
> > any problem prevailing in this situation as long as there is
> > no mechanism for a donor to get his or her money back after
> > it has been transferred to Amazon for the benefit of the Red
> > Cross.

> It may be analogous to setting up a trust, but it just is
> not the same thing. No IRS agent in his right mind will
> allow, nor an appeals officer will allow, such.

Maybe the agents and appeals officers wouldn't, but the IRS
seems pretty willing to go along with the concept: Take a
look at Revenue Ruling 2002-67.

A charity entered into an agreement with a for-profit
company under which the company would act as the charity's
agent to: (1) solicit donations of used cars, (2) accept,
process, and sell the cars, and (3) transfer the sales
proceeds to the charity, after deducting a fee. The
company's activities were subject to the charity's review
and approval. Because the agreement established a valid
agency relationship under state law, a transfer to the
company was treated as a transfer to the charity.

The IRS also ruled here that the agent can provide the
acknowledgment on behalf of the donee organization. The IRS
concluded that, where a for-profit company was authorized to
act as a charity's agent in administering the charity's car
donation program, a written acknowledgment provided by the
company satisfied the requirement that the acknowledgment be
made by the donee organization.

I'd be very willing to take this sort of case before the
appeals office, because the IRS would be paying my fees for
the client after we win.

--Chris Ballard

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

#26 09-16-2005, 10:43 PM

Vic Dura wrote:
- quote -

> Herb Smith" <smithff33[at]aol.com
> > Why not? The "gift" to the children does not meet the
> > definition of a true gift, as there are strings attached
> > (put in collection plate). The parents have never lost
> > control of the money -- it's actually their donation to the
> > church.

> Speaking of "string" on donations, how do the big donors
> make the million$ donations to universities, hospitals, etc
> to be use for specified purposes such as establishing a
> "chair" in English, or whatever? I can't believe these big
> donors would accept a forfeit of deductibility in such
> cases.

What usually happens is that the charitable organization
agrees to set up an endowment with the donated funds and
signs a gift agreement with the donor outlining what
particular charitable purposes the funds can be used for.
That agreement will provide that a particular professorship
or building or school will be named for the donor. The IRS
has ruled that naming rights do not disqualify the
charitable donation.

Once the endowment has been set up, the charity is bound by
the terms of the gift agreement unless it gets permission
from a court to lift the restrictions on the endowment.
Many states have adopted a version of the Uniform Management
of Institutional Funds Act which covers this sort of
arrangement.

The key here is that the charitable recipient is bound by
the terms of the gift agreement, but the person who has the
power to enforce the agreement is the state attorney
general. The donor doesn't retain any strings, and the gift
still qualifies as a charitable deduction.

--Chris Ballard

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

#25 09-15-2005, 05:58 PM

Herb Smith" <smithff33[at]aol.com
- quote -

> Why not? The "gift" to the children does not meet the
> definition of a true gift, as there are strings attached
> (put in collection plate). The parents have never lost
> control of the money -- it's actually their donation to the
> church.

Speaking of "string" on donations, how do the big donors
make the million$ donations to universities, hospitals, etc
to be use for specified purposes such as establishing a
"chair" in English, or whatever? I can't believe these big
donors would accept a forfeit of deductibility in such
cases.

--
To email me directly, remove CLUTTER.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

#24 09-15-2005, 05:58 PM

- quote -

> > > But.... the Salvation Army administrative expenses are less.

> > The only data I have ever seen on the subject of admin
> > expense comes from the annual reports for both the Salvation
> > Army (SA) and the Red Cross (RC).
> > > The SA reported in their 2003 report that 83 cents of every
> > dollar spent went to direct services to the public. The RC
> > reported in its 2004 report that they spent 91.1 cents out
> > of every dollar on public services. The remainder was spent
> > on G&A and fund raising.

> That's enlightening, Alan; thanks.
> However, let's not compare apples to oranges, i.e. one's
> 2003 report with another's 2004 report. Each organization
> has both fixed expenses and variable expenditures, the
> latter taking up the major portion of public service
> expenditures. In 2004 I think it was, there was a tsunami
> and the Red Cross probably spent more than the Salvation
> army on this disaster.

The RC numbers are the same for 2003 and 2004 (91 cents).
Here are the 2003 numbers. RC year ends 6/30 and SA ends
9/30.

Operating Expenses In Cents per Dollar. Everything else
falls under public services of one kind or another.

RC SA
Fund Raising 3.6 4.8
Mgt & General 5.2 11.6

I do know that the RC numbers include $40M of R&D that is
carried in Biomedical Services. If you want to exclude that
amount from public services, it's about 1.3 cents out of
every dollar.

I "think" that one of the contributing factors to the RC
having a much lower M&G expense per dollar spent is that the
RC has a very large number of volunteers providing M&G
services as compared to the SA.

--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

#23 09-15-2005, 05:39 PM

cballard[at]tyyni.net wrote:

- quote -

> > Are you willing to represent a client before IRS on that?

> Yes, I would be willing to represent a client before the IRS
> on that, as long as there was a clear understanding between
> the parties that the funds were earmarked for the use of the
> Red Cross. This is analogous to setting up a charitable
> trust, with Amazon acting as the trustee and the Red Cross
> being the sole beneficiary. I don't think there would be
> any problem prevailing in this situation as long as there is
> no mechanism for a donor to get his or her money back after
> it has been transferred to Amazon for the benefit of the Red
> Cross.

It may be analogous to setting up a trust, but it just is
not the same thing. No IRS agent in his right mind will
allow, nor an appeals officer will allow, such.

- quote -

> The entire point is moot, anyway, because a donor who
> contributes more than $250 will be given a receipt from the
> Red Cross. Here's what the Amazon web site says:
> "Victims of Hurricane Katrina are attempting to recover from
> the massive storm. American Red Cross volunteers have been
> deployed to the hardest hit areas of Katrina's destruction,
> supplying hundreds of thousands of victims left homeless
> with critical necessities. By making a financial donation to
> support hurricane relief efforts, the Red Cross can provide
> shelter, food, counseling and other assistance to those
> affected by Hurricane Katrina. Privacy Notice: If your
> donation is $250 or more, Amazon.com will provide your name,
> credit card billing address, and donation amount to the
> American Red Cross, and the American Red Cross will provide
> you with a receipt for your donation."

the OP gave us to understand that no receipts whatsoever
from the Red Cross would be forthcoming. So if this is the
case, there will be documentary evidence of gifts over 250$.

But in order to give and deduct on schedule a less than
250$, best idea is to give directly to the local chapter of
the Red Cross.

- quote -

> On your other question (with the kids and the church
> donation), it depends on the understanding between the
> parents and the kids. If the parents give the money to the
> kids and the kids have the ability to use the money on
> whatever they want, but they choose to donate it to the
> church, then there has been a gift to the children from the
> parents, and a charitable donation from the kids to the
> church. If the parents still control the money and dictate
> that it must be used for the church offering, then no gift
> has been made to the children and the parents get the
> charitable deduction...the kids were just acting as the
> agents of the parents.

Okay, I can agree with you on those distinctions. But note
that' with minor children they can't make a free will
choice.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

#22 09-15-2005, 05:20 PM

- quote -

> > > > > I just donated some money to the Red Cross using Amazon.com.
> > > > > It was less than $250, so Amazon says they won't share my
> > > > > name with the Red Cross. All Amazon did was send me a
> > > > > confirmation email. Does that email qualify as a valid
> > > > > "receipt" that I can use for tax purposes? The email
> > > > > doesn't even have my name on it... it just has my email
> > > > > address, the date, the amount, and the name of the credit
> > > > > card used, along with "American Red Cross" as the recipient.

> > > > Well I say "Shame on Amazon.com."
> > > > > > > Unless your donation is TO the qualified organization, it
> > > > just ain't deductible. And using just an email address
> > > > further muddies the waters, sort of like the Big Muddy did
> > > > to N'awleens.

> > > Code section 170(c) actually says that a charitable donation
> > > is a contribution or gift to *or for the use of* a
> > > charitable organization. I would think that a transfer of
> > > money to Amazon that was earmarked for use by the Red Cross
> > > should qualify.

> > Are you willing to represent a client before IRS on that?
> > > (grin)
> > > And parents who give their children money to put in the
> > collection plate at church on Sunday; should they be
> > allowed that as a deduction?

> Why not? The "gift" to the children does not meet the
> definition of a true gift, as there are strings attached
> (put in collection plate). The parents have never lost
> control of the money -- it's actually their donation to the
> church.

Forget the first instance of "gift" above; I should say the
parents "transfer" the money to their children for said
purposes.

AT the end of the year when church statements of giving are
handed out, whose name is on the childrens' statement?
theirs of course, making it impossible for the parents to
then claim a schedule a deduction.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

#21 09-15-2005, 05:20 PM

- quote -

> > > All I know is three local Red Cross trucks left Richmond a
> > > few days ago. Destination ???
> > > > > I know it was not Orlando.
> > > > > Three Salvation Army trucks also left here for the Gulf
> > > Coast.
> > > > > Several busses from this area that went down to pick up
> > > "refugees" to bring to homes that were lined up in Virginia
> > > as temporary residences came back empty.
> > > > > Big Government is a wonderful thing!!!!

then I said:

- quote -

> > Hold the phone there. You can't SAY "refugees"; it's just
> > not politically correct. Proper word (as I hear on tv) is
> > "evacuees." I just shake my head sometimes.
> > > Also I learn today that many fire fighters from Noo Yawk
> > city and others were enroute to help out but first they had
> > to go through FEMA mandated training in Atlanta and take
> > courses in community relations and sexual harrassment.
> > Again, I just shake my head in disbelief.

> Until they change the bill of rights with a Constitutional
> Amendment I will continue to call them refugees. I continue
> to call young women Miss. If anyone takes offence when none
> is intended, it is their problem not mine.

Agree with you 110% Fred. Thinking about it now, maybe
"they" are right, here's why. A refugee is one who takes
the initiative and seeks refuge, a way out, before the storm
hits. He is proactive.

An evacuee on the other hand waits and depends on the
gobment to take care of him. He is reactive.

ChEAr$,
Harlan

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

#20 09-15-2005, 05:20 PM

David Samuel Barr wrote:
- quote -

> Harlan Lunsford wrote:

> > 2. I favor Salvation Army if for no other reason, Target
> > STores (French owned company)

> Target is not and has never been French-owned.
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp

Well now, don't believe everything you read on the web. We
should all know that. But I grant the possibility that
this might be correct information. Question is now, who's
going to tell my wife? (grin)

- quote -

> > kicked their kettles out at Christmas time.

> Target allowed Salvation Army kettles for years--their sole
> exception to their blanket non-solicitation policy.

I know that.

- quote -

> Due to
> pressure from other groups that were excluded, they
> rescinded that exception in January 2004 (after the 2003
> Christmas season, and well in advance of 2004's), while
> inviting the SA to come up with another way Target could
> support them within its guidelines (SA has yet to do so).

Since when should a donor ask the donee how they can support
them? If they truly want to support then, they can by Gawd
find a way. "Pressure from other groups"; that's a lame
excuse.

- quote -

> Many other national retail chains have similar policies that
> exclude SA's kettles, which have merited no comment; Target
> seems to have been targeted solely for PR purposes by its
> competitors and the usual anti-business suspects.
> http://target.com/target_group/commu...citation.jhtml

Well, you know the national media and how they will
sensationalize everything. And it's always the
competition's fault. Like K-Mart was trying to blame
Wal-Mart for planting insiders within their ranks to hasten
their demise.

How many days till we get the Christmas spirit(s) back?

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

#19 09-15-2005, 12:50 AM

"A.G. Kalman" <glendale202-taxes[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

> Harlan Lunsford wrote:

> [snip]
> > > But.... the Salvation Army administrative expenses are less.

> The only data I have ever seen on the subject of admin
> expense comes from the annual reports for both the Salvation
> Army (SA) and the Red Cross (RC).
> The SA reported in their 2003 report that 83 cents of every
> dollar spent went to direct services to the public. The RC
> reported in its 2004 report that they spent 91.1 cents out
> of every dollar on public services. The remainder was spent
> on G&A and fund raising.

But, it all depends on how you define the term overhead and
of course allocation practices.

--
Frederick E. Jorden http://Tax-Accounting-Payroll.com
7825 Midlothian Tpk - 207 Richmond, VA 23235-5247
EMAIL knowtax[at]bigfoot.com
(804) 320-6210 FAX (804) 320-6211

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

#18 09-15-2005, 12:50 AM

"A.G. Kalman" <glendale202-taxes[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

> Harlan Lunsford wrote:

> [snip]
> > > But.... the Salvation Army administrative expenses are less.

> The only data I have ever seen on the subject of admin
> expense comes from the annual reports for both the Salvation
> Army (SA) and the Red Cross (RC).
> The SA reported in their 2003 report that 83 cents of every
> dollar spent went to direct services to the public. The RC
> reported in its 2004 report that they spent 91.1 cents out
> of every dollar on public services. The remainder was spent
> on G&A and fund raising.

But, it all depends on how you define the term overhead and
of course allocation practices.

--
Frederick E. Jorden http://Tax-Accounting-Payroll.com
7825 Midlothian Tpk - 207 Richmond, VA 23235-5247
EMAIL knowtax[at]bigfoot.com
(804) 320-6210 FAX (804) 320-6211

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

#17 09-15-2005, 12:30 AM

"Harlan Lunsford" <hlunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

> Fred Jorden wrote:
> > "Harlan Lunsford" <hlunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:

> (snipped)

> > > On a related note, (venting now) on all the coverage on tv
> > > from N'awleens, I saw Salvation Army trucks several times
> > > dishing out the aid, but never saw any footage of Red Cross
> > > personnel anywhere. So you know where I sent my money.

> > All I know is three local Red Cross trucks left Richmond a
> > few days ago. Destination ???
> > > I know it was not Orlando.
> > > Three Salvation Army trucks also left here for the Gulf
> > Coast.
> > > Several busses from this area that went down to pick up
> > "refugees" to bring to homes that were lined up in Virginia
> > as temporary residences came back empty.
> > > Big Government is a wonderful thing!!!!

> Hold the phone there. You can't SAY "refugees"; it's just
> not politically correct. Proper word (as I hear on tv) is
> "evacuees." I just shake my head sometimes.
> Also I learn today that many fire fighters from Noo Yawk
> city and others were enroute to help out but first they had
> to go through FEMA mandated training in Atlanta and take
> courses in community relations and sexual harrassment.
> Again, I just shake my head in disbelief.

Until they change the bill of rights with a Constitutional
Amendment I will continue to call them refugees. I continue
to call young women Miss. If anyone takes offence when none
is intended, it is their problem not mine.

--
Frederick E. Jorden http://Tax-Accounting-Payroll.com
7825 Midlothian Tpk - 207 Richmond, VA 23235-5247
EMAIL knowtax[at]bigfoot.com
(804) 320-6210 FAX (804) 320-6211

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

#16 09-15-2005, 12:11 AM

A.G. Kalman wrote:
- quote -

> Harlan Lunsford wrote:

> [snip]

> > But.... the Salvation Army administrative expenses are less.

> The only data I have ever seen on the subject of admin
> expense comes from the annual reports for both the Salvation
> Army (SA) and the Red Cross (RC).
> The SA reported in their 2003 report that 83 cents of every
> dollar spent went to direct services to the public. The RC
> reported in its 2004 report that they spent 91.1 cents out
> of every dollar on public services. The remainder was spent
> on G&A and fund raising.

That's enlightening, Alan; thanks.

However, let's not compare apples to oranges, i.e. one's
2003 report with another's 2004 report. Each organization
has both fixed expenses and variable expenditures, the
latter taking up the major portion of public service
expenditures. In 2004 I think it was, there was a tsunami
and the Red Cross probably spent more than the Salvation
army on this disaster.

ChEAr$,
Harlan

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Similar Threads
Thread	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Cross-linked accounts PuffinPete: I've had what I considered to be a corruption in Money 2000 and lived with it, but have just acquired Money 2004 and tried the following and it...	Microsoft Money	5	03-03-2004 10:11 AM
Passive Losses from 2 Rental Income Properties - Cross use? dhensley: I have two income properties each with passive (suspended) losses. If I sell one property and generate large taxable capital gains, may I use the...	Taxes	1	12-29-2003 09:26 PM
Selling used books through Amazon Rick Matz: What is your tax liability for selling used books through Amazon? Do they issue a 1099? I'm thinking of clearing out my bookshelves, and I'd...	Taxes	4	07-24-2003 06:04 PM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode