Quoted from rampage

Just wondering, but who says that "they have no choice but to operate "for profit?""  They may actually be more effective and prosperous still doing business as a non-profit corporation.

That would be their only choice if they are to continue their operations withour public financing. I don't see how a non-profit could be
more prosperous than a solvent business...and their history as a non-profit has been one of endless requests for public money
because they have never been solvent. There was a time when the idea of a business/accounting manager was introduced, but they
wanted no part of that...probably because the ALS income would have been detected.

Quoted from bumblethru

One can only 'suggest' and 'assume' and draw their own conclusions... since there are apparently no documented facts for where this $$$$$ went.

A half a mill awol, is something rotterdamians should not take lightly.

Not good at organizing their finances????? A HALF A MILL?????

Hmmmmm......next time a business can't show where a HALF A MILL went, I'm sure the IRS will understand. Or perhaps it depends on who they hire as an attorney.

There is nothing to assume as far as retaining the ALS revenues...they admit keeping it...and they didn't document that income
because they knew it wasn't theirs to keep.

And you're right BT...not something that should be taken lightly...or the insanity in progress...which is consideration for a contract
with a company that toook a LOT of money from the Town...with no statements to date that indicate any intention of ever reimbursing
the Town in whole or in part.

I'm also sure that the IRS would have been very interested to know about all of that unreported income while they were racking up
a massive debt with that same IRS.

Quoted from gadfly

Yes we will...not taken personally...nor should you.

Never do.....

who says its a half a mi? the only person i ever heard say that is the bastion of sanity known as kelly rhinesmith  

Correct me if im wrong but the only difference between a non profit and a regular company is someone owns the company and gets the income of the corp and a non profit can pay income but the actual assets of the non profit cant be given to anyone they have to be used for the benefit of the company.... whats wrong with that? isnt that what we want in a SERVICE provider!?

Quoted from black spidey

Correct me if im wrong but the only difference between a non profit and a regular company is someone owns the company and gets the income of the corp and a non profit can pay income but the actual assets of the non profit cant be given to anyone they have to be used for the benefit of the company.... whats wrong with that? isnt that what we want in a SERVICE provider!?

A non profit can still pay their attorney and cpa right?

I guess it doesn't matter if you are on the $$$ receiving end, huh?

How much does a non-profit contribute to the tax base?

they didnt pay their payroll taxes.....................................

tonko, angelo, and gerard took care of that though

Quoted from bumblethru

A non profit can still pay their attorney and cpa right?

As long as your revenue doesn't exceed your operating expenses, you are non-profit.  So in order to keep your revenue from exceeding expenses, you increase your administrative costs.  Which I would imagine includes CPA and attorney costs.  So if you are a non profit and have a little money left over above your "operating expenses" - guess what?  Your CPA and attorney rates just went up.  Gotta get rid of that money somewhere.  

what are you talking about!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????????? you can generate revenue as a non profit just cant have proceeds going to owners...otherwise you are saying the redcross cant carry over money year to year? raelly? get a brain

Quoted from black spidey

what are you talking about!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????????? you can generate revenue as a non profit just cant have proceeds going to owners...otherwise you are saying the redcross cant carry over money year to year? raelly? get a brain

the Red Cross was hammered a couple years ago for their administrative costs.....actually I think it was exposed after Katrina and folks
stopped the donations.....

Quoted from black spidey

what are you talking about!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????????? you can generate revenue as a non profit just cant have proceeds going to owners...otherwise you are saying the redcross cant carry over money year to year? raelly? get a brain

But the extra revenues CAN go toward their operating costs.........such as their cpa or attorney.

Actually, B.S. is exactly right in this case.  The difference between a for profit company and a not for profit corporation is what happens to any excess funds (a.k.a. profit) that the company makes.  A for profit company gives these out to the owners / stock owners of the company, where a not for profit reinvests the money in the company.  

If they wish to give it away as a bonus to employees, that's what they do, but they don't pay it out to "owners."  They can re-invest it and try to make money off of it, but in the end, the only difference is how the money is paid out, stockholders or within the company.  That would be considered a not for profit's "reinvestment."

Quoted from black spidey

what are you talking about!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????????? you can generate revenue as a non profit just cant have proceeds going to owners...otherwise you are saying the redcross cant carry over money year to year? raelly? get a brain

They can generate surplus.  Where is the $120K and the ALS money?  Surplus?