 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsAnalysisComputerChess Politics ChessKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Chess Forum / General Topics / November 2007Definition of a USCF Employee
[quote="Allen"][quote="samsloan"] In that case, the by-laws committee was wrong. A person who works in the office and gets paid for their work on an hourly basis is an employee. Sam Sloan[/quote] Not according to the federal government. There is a 20 point test to establish whether one is an employee or an independent contractor. Your statement is way too simplistic and just factually wrong. Allen Priest, CPA[/quote] The real issue here is that the rule that an employee may not be a board member or a candidate for election to the board is not just a USCF rule. It is a standard rule that applies generally to all not-for- profit corporations. Not-for-profit corporations do not have to pay taxes. If employees could be board members and run the organization then all corporations would convert to not-for-profit status, just to avoid the payment of taxes. This issue never came up until recently because in all the years that I have been a USCF member since 1956 I do not recall it ever happening that the lines between being a board member and an employee were ever blurred. However, in the last few years there have been several dubious cases, the 2006 election being one of them. In the 2006 election, two of the candidates were doing office work for the USCF. In the 2005 election, Bill Goichberg was employed as Executive Director and then resigned just in time to announce that he was running for the board. In the 2007 election, Polgar claimed to have a contract to write a monthly column in Chess Life magazine for five years (although this turned out not to be a signed contract, but a verbal contract based in part on email exchanges) and nevertheless ran for the board. These questions need to be addressed, and that is probably the reason why Larry Cohen raised the issue in starting this thread. Sam Sloan [quote="nolan"]The list of Board candidates who have served as TDs at national events in the year preceding their election is fairly long, and the policy of not considering them employees is long-standing even if it wasn't in the Bylaws until 2006. Sam, what taxes is it you think someone could avoid by having a corporation be not-for-profit and board members be employees of that not-for-profit corporation?[/quote] In the case of the USCF, since the USCF loses money every year, it would make no difference. However, back when Al Lawrence was Executive Director and the USCF was hugely profitable, I understand that there was at least one IRS investigation of the USCF. Let us hope that someday the USCF starts making money again and the IRS has reason to come back. I realize that this is the opposite of the question you are actually asking. Sam Sloan [quote="nolan"]Ernie Schlich was neither working in the office (he lives in Virginia, and as far as I know has only visited Crossville once) nor was/is he being paid for his work helping with FIDE reports. He did serve as a TD at several national scholastic events in the months leading up to the election in 2006.[/quote] As I understand it, Ernie was being paid for some of the work he did but was not paid for some of the other work he did. In particular, he was not paid for bringing the delinquent FIDE rating reports up to date. Ernie was also a long time USCF office employee. He was technical director for many years. Other than working for the USCF, Ernie, had no other job. His only other income was his retirement check from the Navy. I believe that Ernie is quite happy that he was not elected. His campaign petition was circulated by Robert Tanner not by Ernie, and Tanner also paid the $250 filing fee for Ernie to run. Ernie was never very enthusiastic about running for election. Now, the question is, who paid the $250 filing fee for Polgar and Truong, or was it paid? Sam Sloan [quote="nolan"]You made the statement: [quote]If employees could be board members and run the organization then all corporations would convert to not-for-profit status, just to avoid the payment of taxes.[/quote] You should explain what you mean. Corporations cannot convert to not- for-profit status just because they want it, they have to meet the IRS's requirements for the type of not-for-profit status they're applying for. And I don't see where employees being on the Board has any relevance here.[/quote] If you do not see the relevance, then kindly explain why every not-for- profit corporation has a rule that employees cannot be a member of the board. Sam Sloan Jerry Hanken wrote: > Sam knows the problems that are being dealt with. Mainly the pension plan > for which this EB had no part in creating and the investigation of the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have time to answer any more silly questions, Sam, give it a rest! Jerry > Hanken Yes, Sam Sloan's obsession is obvious, and it is indeed silly. OTOH, other alternatives, like your own milieu are simply less evident perversions to any topic of what progresses us. No-one, it seems, in office, or in influence, has time to say what does further us, since that would require transcending egos, and those who pull the strings are already reaching for the dictionary. Phil Innes > [quote="nolan"]You made the statement: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Sam Sloan Already refuted. Somehow Sloan didn't get around to crosspostingit. Mike Nolan wrote: Not every not-for-profit has that rule, nor is it required under Illinois law. The Illinois Attorney General has a web page with advice for board members of not-for-profits (http:// www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/ ... teers.html) which includes this: "If a board member is also an employee, compensation can be paid but the employee/board member should not participate in setting his or her compensation." |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.