BRASSO Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said: Good point. Presumably at the close of a corps' fiscal year, its leadership decides how much of the outstanding money still due from members should go on the books as a receivable--because they foresee a reasonable chance of getting paid--and how much they simply don't book. No point in setting yourself up to write off bad debt later. Nice use of vocabulary as well as the general understanding of accounting principles. However, as things pertain here, CC made a conscious decision to invoke a contract clause because a former member from last summer's Corps was found to have made a spot in another DCI Corps, thus triggering ( in their CC's view ) the " Scholarship to Payment on Demand Conversion Bill " to its former marcher(s) and parent(s). There would be no " bad debt " issues for CC in this specific instance, nor any unusual " accounts receivable " issues here for CC either, had the former CC marchers left CC and DCI entirely at the conclusion of last summer. Edited February 5, 2017 by BRASSO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) 38 minutes ago, dcifanforlife said: I have been sponsoring members in different corps for over thirty years and many of those members moved to other corps after a couple years. I have also given funds to many scholarship funds. Sponsorships are not tax deductible but scholarships are only if they are not for a particular individual. Donors should never get their money back under any circumstance. I don't care what the individual or the corps does with my money. Contracts are awarded in the fall and winter months. Most scholarships are awarded just before spring training or at spring training. A corps has no way to know if a member is going to need a scholarship until they fall behind in their dues payments not when the contract is signed. No member or parent should sign a contract with Crown if a revoking scholarship provision is part of the contract. We are talking about a corps here that collects thousands of dollars in registration fees and camp fees from hundreds of auditionee's that have no chance of making the corps. This is petty and vindictive on Crowns part. Crown should redo all of their 2017 contracts. First, thanks very much for your support of the activity over the years. My story is very similar to yours. I'd like to ask you to direct a link to the tax code that separates out sponsorships and scholarships to non-profits. That I've never seen a distinction doesn't mean it doesn't exist but, considering your claim is substantially based on it, I'd like to know your source. AFAIK, no one here has made a contention that the donor get his money back but, rather, the donor has a right to make restricted donations and expect the ED to use them as directed. Restricted and unrestricted contributions are posted on two, separate lines of the financial documents for a reason. There's also a fiduciary responsibility for the ED to treat his donor's money with extreme care. I would think the donor might have a significant legal claim against a NP that ignores his desires, but I'm attorney and I would suspect that most donors would simply choose to not trust that decision again. I appreciate your passion, and maybe Crown will not any longer accept restricted contributions. Doesn't seem like a very good business decision to me, but perhaps you're right. Edited February 5, 2017 by garfield 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, garfield said: You're starting with the premise that the fees were doubled and we don't have that here (based on known details). Good grief... read what Craiga was posting just above... a fictionalized example to make a point. He clearly was not speaking literally, but figuratively here.( lol!) " Self awareness" of one's surroundings helps one not get lost in world of " The Figuratively Speaking " ( lol!) Edited February 5, 2017 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, BRASSO said: Good grief... read what Craiga was posting just above... a fictionalized example to make a point. He clearly was not speaking literally, but figuratively here.( lol!) " Self awareness" of one's surroundings helps one not get lost in world of " The Figuratively Speaking " ( lol!) "A fictionalized example...". OK. If the moon were made of green cheese and drum corps performers wore ice skates while the activity was sponsored by the government of Bulgaria... yawn Can we at least expect that posters remain fixed somewhat in this reality here instead of asking us to step into his alternate universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bruckner8 said: As long as the donor is kept in the loop, I'm down, cuz the donor created the condition NOT THE CORPS. (This not a subtle thing, but it's being glossed over.) technically the donor should get that money back! If we follow this fictionalied version's logic ( for discussion purpose here only ) and we naturally put no time limit on this, then it would be accurate to state that the Carolina Crown organization would owe the Boston Crusaders organization and/ or its " donors " a LOT of money this morning. Edited February 5, 2017 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, dcifanforlife said: I have been sponsoring members in different corps for over thirty years and many of those members moved to other corps after a couple years. I have also given funds to many scholarship funds. Sponsorships are not tax deductible but scholarships are only if they are not for a particular individual. Donors should never get their money back under any circumstance. I don't care what the individual or the corps does with my money. Contracts are awarded in the fall and winter months. Most scholarships are awarded just before spring training or at spring training. A corps has no way to know if a member is going to need a scholarship until they fall behind in their dues payments not when the contract is signed. No member or parent should sign a contract with Crown if a revoking scholarship provision is part of the contract. We are talking about a corps here that collects thousands of dollars in registration fees and camp fees from hundreds of auditionee's that have no chance of making the corps. This is petty and vindictive on Crowns part. Crown should redo all of their 2017 contracts. From previous experiences, I disagree with several aspects of what you say. You posit your opinion as the only way things should be done and that your opinion covers every situation. For one, contracts are and can be awarded at any time of the year, from the kid who fills a hole in Spring training to someone who shows up mid-season. The contracts are not necessarily identical to what members might have signed in November. I also know kids who arrived pre-auditions who had legitimate financial need, wonderful talent, and recommendations from counselors/educators or therapists saying that it would be better for the young person's growth to march rather than to stay home and work or vegetate. They've asked for help from the beginning, and upon research and discussion, sometimes financial aid, sometimes discounts, sometimes networking leads to sponsors, sometimes an outright scholarship for corps dues/out of pocket monies/ and/or college tuition has been granted as a gift. Scholarships can and are awarded at any time of the year. As I said in a previous post, I supervise(d) several such scholarship funds which over the years have assisted MMs who eventually marched 8 different DCI corps; at least two of the funds did not involve corps administrators although they may have been cognizant of the source of funding for the MM. This includes MMs who marched Boston Crusaders and others who marched Crown. Your experience is not the only experience. I know of no corps who refunds the audition fees of any person who applies to the corps and doesn't make the line. Some do rebates or lower rates for alternates or those who fill a hole later in the season. Singling Crown only for collecting audition fees seems vindictive on your part. Edited February 5, 2017 by xandandl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) 56 minutes ago, garfield said: Can we at least expect that posters remain fixed somewhat in this reality here instead of asking us to step into his alternate universe? Probably not, imo. We had a poster yesterday... " Slingerland ".. claiming that these former CC marchers were hoping to skip away undetected and get away with not paying and hoping " they wouldn't get caught". That was pure" fiction" The " truth is that Boston immediately contacted Crown when these marchers made a spot in line at Boston ( usual protocol ) to determine if they owed any past monies to Crown . My trusted sources tell me the marcher , parents genuinely thought they were free and clear of any past monies due back to CC . But in any event, there was no attempt to try and" get away " with anything on the part of former CC marchers and parents, and " hope they won't get caught". The poster" Slingerland" in his" alternative universe" who was informed that his narrative was " BS " fiction never even retracted it, nor apologized for the false narrative. So until posters live in the real world here, I'm not all that optimistic that we won't delve onto a fictionalized trail on this thread on occasion here moving forward. Edited February 5, 2017 by BRASSO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) 43 minutes ago, garfield said: I'd like to ask you to direct a link to the tax code that separates out sponsorships and scholarships to non-profits. That I've never seen a distinction doesn't mean it doesn't exist but, considering your claim is substantially based on it, I'd like to know your source. The IRS considers donations to a general scholarship fund to be deductible as long as it's shown that the class of those eligible to receive those scholarships is broad (and not pre-selected). A member sponsorship, where a specific individual benefits from the support, would be considered a personal gift, rather than a donation to the charity. It's the same difference as between donating to a local food pantry (which is deductible, as long as they're a recognized 501(c)(3)) and buying a specific homeless person a cheeseburger (not deductible). The end results might be similar, but the mechanics are different. Edited February 5, 2017 by Slingerland 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 4 hours ago, garfield said: You're starting with the premise that the fees were doubled and we don't have that here (based on known details). This is in my opinion no different than when others had to read (several times I might add) your hypothetical conversations over and over again. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 11 hours ago, LabMaster said: Good gosh, I keep peeking into this thread today and I still see dumb comments from DCPer's, who seem to have abandoned all logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts