 sj |
||
|
||
Can we have some Mudcat accounts?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: catspaw49 Date: 12 May 02 - 11:58 AM Wonderfully done circle games you're playing my dear troll......Excellent job and I commend your performance......You fail to answer the relevant questions thrown back by repeating yourself on a different issue/question.....Very well done! Now obviously none of this has anything to do with you nor is it even remotely important to anyone that matters nor are you even slightly interested at all in Mudcat, so again, I commend your performance as it has achieved an excellent response from the members which should delight you no end. Congrats on a job well done! I don't mind giving you this additional message as I'm sure you will continue in any number of ways to keep both of these threads going until you decide to quit....and as you seem to be a weekend kind of troll, I imagine that will probably be about Tuesday. Until then, keep up the good work in continuing to prove the effectiveness a knowledgeable troll can have. Again, an excellent job of stirring!!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: GUEST Date: 12 May 02 - 11:10 AM Which is the exact opposite of what the homepage says. So which one is right? Clearly, one of the other statements doesn't belong there. And the "selective quoting" I've done from the solicitation page states: "Both Dick and I benefit a great deal from the success of Onstage. One very certain way to benefit The Mudcat and Digitrad is to refer business to Onstage Media, Inc., and its clients." That conceivably looks like a claim that Onstage Media owns, or at the very least has financial interests in both Mudcat Cafe and Digital Tradition. Which raises the pesky IRS issue of entangled ownership, and "creative" accounting of unrelated business income linked in some murky way to Digital Tradition. Which Dick Greenhaus has come into these threads to confirm IS a registered non-profit organization (despite your protestations to the contrary katlaughing). That makes SOMEONE here obliged to obey IRS, Pennsylvania and Delaware laws regarding unrelated business income reporting for tax exempt organizations, whether charitable or not. The homepage says both the Mudcat Cafe and Digital Tradition are registered non-profit organizations. Dick Greenhaus says Digital Tradition is a non-profit non-charitable organization. So what the hell is the REAL story here? Or is it something that just needs to be reported to appropriate authorities to be sorted out?
|
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: katlaughing Date: 12 May 02 - 06:22 AM Stated plainly and clearly, by Max, on the same page from which Guest is selectively quoting (emphasis is mine): Anyhow, I hate the idea of accepting donations. We can't afford to get our tax exempt status, therefore any donations are not tax-deductible... |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Banjer Date: 12 May 02 - 04:45 AM Let's make use of the idiot's rant....lets start a fund driive each time one of these trolls rears its ugly head, then they may stop just because they know it is inadvertanly helping the 'Cat. |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: DougR Date: 12 May 02 - 02:24 AM Artbrooks gave a heads up troll alert on the 10th of May. What was the result? Multiple posts since then. "Oh when will we ever learn, Oh when will we ever learn?" DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Amos Date: 12 May 02 - 02:07 AM Dear Anonymous.... Thanks for the donation. Your account now stands at: Monetary Value of Contirbutions in Kind you have made (see categories above)(Estimated due to anonymity: $(11,211.98) Monetary Value of Donations in check or currency made by you to the Mudcat Cafe: $0.00 Net credit/debt: ($325910.43) DR The unspecified and less-than-helpful suggestions about "cleaning up acts" are adjudicated to have been the primary factor in the notrable decrease in value contributed. and the resultant dramatic increase in negative value on account. Please take steps to rectify this situation at the earliest possible moment. A |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Devilmaster Date: 12 May 02 - 01:28 AM *Yawn* |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: GUEST Date: 12 May 02 - 12:50 AM As it isn't possible to ascertain what the amount of receipts are for Mudcat/Digitrad from this website, how is a person to be able to determine if this is a legitimate site to contribute to, regardless of whether or not one's contribution is tax deductible? On the solicitation page, Max states: "So how can we be supported? I own a company called Onstage Media, Inc. which does nothing less than finance the entire Mudcat operations. Dick finances the Digitrad with his pocket change and an occasional grant. Both Dick and I benefit a great deal from the success of Onstage. One very certain way to benefit The Mudcat and Digitrad is to refer business to Onstage Media, Inc., and its clients. You can link to Onstage's Web site throughout the mudcat as well as here to find out more about us. Onstage will donate 10% of all income from work referred through the Mudcat to the Mudcat and Digitrad." It isn't at all clear what the legal relationships are between Mudcat Cafe, Digital Tradition, and Onstage Media. When I see that information on the solicitation page, I wonder if there isn't an issue of "Unrelated Business Income" that could conceivably put the non-profit entity(ies) over the $25,000 mark annually. So I go to Guidestar and the PA Dept of Charities websites to search the databases for info on 990s, and nothing shows up. I know however, the IRS also requires a Solicitation Notice be given making these things clear, regardless of the amount of receipts. From the IRS Charities and Non-profit website: "Section 6113 provides that certain tax-exempt organizations that are not eligible to receive tax deductible charitable contributions must disclose in "an express statement (in a conspicuous and easily recognizable format)" that contributions to the organization are not deductible for Federal income tax purposes as charitable contributions. This provision applies to organizations that are not eligible to receive deductible charitable contributions and are described in either § 501(c), § 501(d), or § 527. The Service issued Notice 88-120 to provide safe harbors for meeting the requirements of § 6113." Then on the home page, Max says: "...the Mudcat Cafe and Digital Tradition, both registered non-profit organizations." So I ask in the forum about all this conflicting information and after a few good sized boulders are heaved my way by people with a lot more loyalty than knowledge, Dick chimes in "Digital Tradition is a non-profit since 1988." To long-time members who clearly trust the site owners, I am not surprised in the least that these don't look like strange irregularities and inconsistencies to you. But I assure you, as someone coming in from the outside, and reading in threads, on the home page, and on the solicitation page all the ways you can support Max and Mudcat, and Dick and Digital Tradition, it does look somewhat irregular (to be polite). If raising the issue on a website forum which is claiming non-profit status on the homepage makes me a jerk in the membership's eyes, so be it. Speaking up and asking the question isn't the problem, the way the information is displayed on the website is, which doesn't exactly make this site look legit and above board. My donation is the suggestion that the site owners clean up their acts, and make things perfectly clear. |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Peter Kasin Date: 11 May 02 - 11:26 PM GUEST, the reason for the heated responses is that your question presupposes a distrust of Max's handling of monies, and appears to be a trolling thread thinly disguised as a simple question. CarolC had a simple solution: PM Max and ask him what he needs. Have you followed her advice? |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: IvanB Date: 11 May 02 - 08:37 PM Guest, you probably should first read the Form 990 instructions. The instance of a single year of receipts over $25,000 doesn't trigger a need for a 990 for that year. In fact, the test for gross receipts of $25,000 yearly is a fairly liberal one that could allow several years of receipts over that level. And, as I said above, I doubt that either DT or Mudcat (or the two combined, for that matter) have ever been close to the $25,000 level. Also, as I stated above Mudcat and DT are not charities. Yes, the PA Dept of Charities could probably make a preliminary investigation, but I doubt seriously that they would determine that either the DT or Mudcat fall under the purview of the Act. Just as nonprofit status does not a charity make, neither do solicitations for donations. If a representation was made that the solicitation was for charitable contributions, that would be another thing altogether. But, as I stated above, I'm pretty sure neither Max nor Dick has ever made such a representation, in fact they have been pretty explicit in stating otherwise. |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: GUEST Date: 11 May 02 - 07:44 PM Unless of course, the income for any year since incorporation has exceeded $25,000. But as I said in the other thread, if the information isn't readily disclosed, the Pennsylvania Dept of Charities can investigate to insure no fraud or abuse has or is taking place. And I think that does bring all this to a conclusion. As I said above, openness and honesty in these matters is a much better policy than obfuscation, hostility, and casting stones at someone asking legitimate questions about the charity status of an organization openly soliciting on-line for donations. |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: IvanB Date: 11 May 02 - 07:38 PM Joe, I think you do the Mudcat a disservice by your continued insistance that it is not a tax exempt organization. As our anonymous Guest has posted, the home page for Mudcat (probably one which the majority of us miss on our way directly to the threads) does state that both Mudcat and the Digital Tradition are "registered non-profit organizations." If this is true, those entities had to claim that status - it isn't just given automagically. That said, I think there is some confusion operating here that a tax exempt organization is automatically a charitable one, i.e., that donations made toward its expenses are tax deductible. I believe both Max and Dick have been very specific that neither entity has been granted charitable organization status by any government agency. It's also been stated in the other thread on this subject that an IRS form 990 is not required of a non-profit which receives less than $25,000 gross receipts in a year. I suspect that both the DT and Mudcat fall well within that exemption. And, if memory serves me right, Max did give some general figures for operating expenses and donation receipts when 'Spaw's "Pledge Drive" was going on last year. So, it probably comes down to the essentially the same thing as what you said last: Anybody dissatisfied with the level of disclosure of DT and Mudcat financials probably shouldn't donate. Those who are convinced that they've gotten far more benefit from both than what they've put into them will probably continue to do so. But if anybody thinks that Dick and Max have some legal requirement to make the organizations' finances public to us all, s/he is laboring under a false assumption. |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Joe Offer Date: 11 May 02 - 04:19 PM Well, my nameless friend/friends, I'll be glad to discuss music with you, without you revealing who you are. However, I have no obligation to discuss finances and legalities with anonymous persons. Pene Azul and I handle the day-to-day operations for Max, but Max is the owner of the Mudcat Cafe. If you need legal or financial information, contact him personally. Regarding the status of Mudcat and the Digital Tradition as organizations, neither entity has claimed tax-exempt status, so no accounting is required. As I have said above and as I have explained in the FAQ, the Mudcat Cafe is run by Max, with help from his friends. The Digital Tradition is run by Dick Greenhaus, with help from his friends. These are not businesses - these are things that Max and Dick and their friends do for their personal enjoyment. If you're not a friend, don't bother contributing. -Joe Offer, a friend- |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: GUEST Date: 11 May 02 - 03:42 PM Is the Mudcat Cafe address given for donations through the link to the "Trouble" thread above (by Gareth) the legal address for Mudcat Cafe and Digital Tradition?
|
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Amos Date: 11 May 02 - 03:39 PM Well, for your personal benefit, here is an accounting, original Guest, and probably of interest to anyone in similar straits: Monetary Value at Current Market Rates of Services you have received from the Mudcat Cafe and its members acting as such (information, educational services, entertainment, psychological counseling, research and reporting services, comedy and cyber-companionship services) (Estimated): $312,698.45 Monetary Value of Contirbutions in Kind you have made (see categories above)(Estimated due to anonymity: $21,567.21 Monetary Value of Donations in check or currency made by you to the Mudcat Cafe: $0.00 Net credit/debt: ($292131.24) DR Please take steps to correct this imbalance at your earliest opportunity. Regards, Amos
|
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: wysiwyg Date: 11 May 02 - 03:28 PM Let me simplify.The question has been asked, sometimes nicely and sometimes rudely. Sometimes with good intentions and sometimes not. Sometimes while knowing what one is talking about and sometimes not.
Whatever-- it's been asked.It's also been answered, sometimes nicely and sometimes rudely. Sometimes with good intentions and sometimes not. Sometimes while knowing what one is talking about and sometimes not.
Whatever--it's been answered.Simply-- and feel however one wishes to feel about this-- the answer is, "No."Would it not make sense to simply move on?? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Midchuck Date: 11 May 02 - 03:12 PM £50,000, my arse Nahhhh! Highly overpriced. P. |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: GUEST,Not the same, one last time Date: 11 May 02 - 03:12 PM Consider this one a public service announcement. From the excellent Nonprofit FAQ site: http://www.nonprofits.org/npofaq/16/47.html How must NPOs respond to public requests for 990s? Summary: New laws and regulations greatly expand public access. They took effect June 8, 1999. by Eric Mercer There has recently been significant expansion of the federal laws and regulations requiring tax-exempt organizations to provide public access to documents they submit to the IRS, including annual tax returns (Form 990 and its relatives) and their Application for Recognition of Exemption (Form 1023). In January 1999, the IRS is releasing new regulations that implement Section 1313 of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 (TBOR2), enacted on July 30, 1996. Furthermore, these new public access requirements have been expanded to include private foundations. (The complete texts of the Federal Register notice and the regulations are available at http://990online.com/fr-doc-99-8638.html. The effective date of the new regulations is June 8, 1999. There is also a practical discussion of how nonprofits should approach making the required disclosures at http://www.nonprofits.org/bulletins/990508.html --PB 5/21/99.) In short, almost all tax-exempt organizations are now required to provide public access in a timely fashion to their most recent three years of federal tax returns and to their original Application for Recognition of Exemption. These must be complete, including From 990 Schedule A and all other accompanying materials submitted to the IRS, with the sole exception of those attachments that name individual donors. A very narrow exception is also made for organizations the IRS determines are being subject to a harassment campaign. There are significant fines for noncompliance. Generally speaking, people who visit one of the tax-exempt organization's offices and ask for these materials must be provided with the opportunity to view and copy them, and tax-exempt organizations must send copies of these materials by mail upon request. Minor fees for copying, postage and other processing may be assessed. An exception to these required access mechanisms is made if the organization makes the materials "widely available," which may be satisfied by publishing them on the Internet in a suitable format. A discussion of the regulations, links to the original laws and regulations, examples of online tax returns, and other related resources, may be found at the U.S. Nonprofit Organization's Form 990 and 1023 Public Access Site http://www.muridae.com/publicaccess/. Other related sites include the Form 990 Web Site http://www.form990.org/, the AIDS Service Provider Accountability Project http://www.accountabilityproject.com/, and GuideStar http://www.guidestar.org/. |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: GUEST,Not the same, one more time Date: 11 May 02 - 02:59 PM OK--I have double checked the front page now. Here is a cut and paste straight from the horses mouth: "In an effort to both provide you with Folk and Blues Music resources as well as raise money for the Mudcat, we have added The Mudcat Record Shop. Find recordings and items not available elsewhere or find more common items at even lower prices than the Giant Corporations, all while supporting and enhancing the Mudcat Cafe and Digital Tradition, both registered non-profit organizations." According to the front page, both Mudcat Cafe and DT are non-profit legal entities. There is a legal requirement for accounting. So the idea that people shouldn't ask for that accounting is pretty outrageous. So, I guess it is perfectly reasonable for users of the site who wish to make a donation to request of Max/Mudcat/DT where one can get the financial information about the organization. They should be able to do that without being villified too, IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: GUEST,Not the same Date: 11 May 02 - 02:50 PM BTW, Joe--do you speak on behalf of Mudcat as a legal representative or something? |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: GUEST,Not the same Date: 11 May 02 - 02:49 PM Joe, I really do appreciate the enthusiasm and level of support of the long time regulars here, but remarks like this: "They are accountable to nobody, and there is no reason why they should be accountable to anybody" seems pretty over the top for someone who is representing a business which obviously is surviving due to goodwill donations. How much goodwill among newcomers do you think you engender with an attitude like that? I, like Mudcat, run a sole proprietorship. you/Max/Dick/Mudcat are still required by law to report income from all sources, which includes monetary donations, in-kind (ie the auction scheme) donations, and from sales of services and merchandise. To suggest that no accountability is owed anyone just isn't true. As the old cliche goes--there is no such thing as a free lunch. |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Gareth Date: 11 May 02 - 02:38 PM Watch this space - And yes we have had a little problem with the banks explaining matters. Put it this way ' Friends of the Mudcat ' UK will not get UK Charitable status, but I am optomistic we will get Non-Profit status. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Joe Offer Date: 11 May 02 - 02:34 PM Well, actually, I don't think we're interested in becoming that formal an operation. Right now, we have the Digital Tradition, which is Dick's baby; and we have the Mudcat Cafe, which belongs to Max. They are accountable to nobody, and there is no reason why they should be accountable to anybody. The Digital Tradition and the Mudcat Cafe are sole proprietorships. Dick and Max own them. The system of management is somewhat akin to an absolute monarchy or a benevolent dictatorship, although I tend to think our monarchs are quite enlightened. A number of people have, of their own free will, given money to Max (and a little bit to Dick) to help them with the cost of operation. Others volunteer to help in other ways. Most of these people consider themselves to be friends of Dick and Max, and they do what they do and give what they give because of trust and affection. If we get more formal, we get into a completely different realm - and we open ourselves to a big batch of problems. We can experience the joys of having the DT and Mudcat operated by a committee. So, I suppose accountability and formal organization are something to consider, but it's up to Dick and Max to decide to relinquish their ownership - and they haven't done that. Most of us like the easy, informal organization we have now. I made a commitment to Max to give him enough to run Mudcat for a month each year. I send him a check, and he can do what he wants with it. He can spend it on beer, for all I care. Of course, if he shuts Mudcat down, I'll stop sending him money. As long as Mudcat keeps running, I'll keep sending him money. That's fair, isn't it? At least, I'm satisfied. -Joe Offer- The Who's In Charge section of the FAQ gives some information on this matter. |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: GUEST,Not the same, etc etc Date: 11 May 02 - 02:30 PM No question about levels of enjoyment, Gareth. But when one is talking financials, we aren't just discussing bang for the buck entertainment wise. There is a question of accountability as well. I personally was unaware of the UK funding scheme. So isn't it possible for regulars to understand that none of this is very transparent to outsiders (ie potential funders, banks, the IRS), newcomers wishing to contribute, that sort of thing? I also had no idea that people were donating to the auction to benefit Mudcat until I read the thread. And BTW, it might well be that these income sources won't allow Max to get non-profit status until and unless he has a better financial accountability system in place. Just things to think about. It may not be as obvious to long-time regulars who have helped devise and contribute to the financial schemes over time, as it is to us newbies who haven't a clue about all these things. Would an explanation of all this on the front page be such a bad thing? |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Gareth Date: 11 May 02 - 02:04 PM Actually - Us European 'Catters are trying to do something - See this thread ! Click 'Ere Unfortunately I don't think that we can cater for'OZ cos the banks tend to be mercenary. When MAX fired up his distress flare in January Click 'Ere Various means inluding couriers, Bill Sables cash swops etc. were used to feed finance into the US of A. And it seems to have worked. I hope, if myself and others, have convinced the Unity Trust Bank of our 'bona fides' that we will in the next few days have a method of providing an income stream to the 'Cat. On a personal note the Mudcate Cafe has given me hours of enjoyment. I hope we can all put something back in to it. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: GUEST,Not the same one as above Date: 11 May 02 - 02:02 PM Actually, I'm pretty careful with who I send "donation" money to, so the suggestion that if Max wishes to be supported by donations (whether for or not for profit), doesn't fall on deaf ears with me. IMO, it is never a a bad idea to give some sort of accountability information in these sorts of endeavors--which Max could do on the front page of Mudcat. Just some basic info as to how his program here works, what donations go towards, some explanation of how much the operating costs are per year, that sort of stuff. Nothing substantial, but just informational in a friendly way. My guess is newcomers and occassional users of the site would be encouraged rather that discouraged to donate that way. While I understand the feeling of loyalty and appreciation to Max the regulars feel, it isn't realistic to think that the regulars are financially sustaining the Mudcat endeavor, if I understand operating costs for sites like this at all. Which means, if Max is to be able to do this long-term, other financial strategies (than the goodwill donations) will need to be initiated to continue to pay the operating costs of the site. It is one thing to run a site on goodwill, which is what Max does with Mudcat apparently. It is another thing entirely to try and run a site with sales, donations, memberships, etc. That does take accounting, and if you are going to do the latter, it is only reasonable for member/donors to be given a reasonable accounting of how the money gets spent on a regular basis, just as a matter of good business practice. Nothing will sink an endeavor faster than mistrust of management in these sorts of "friendly" circumstances where the relationship between member/donor and recipient isn't well defined. Both sides become suspicious of one another's motives, and it is all downhill from there. These are difficult issues for Mudcat folk, I know. On the one hand, Max has gotten by on the goodwill of his regulars. Apparently. We don't really know what percent of Mudcat donations covers what percent of the operating expenses. To suggest (in absolutist terms) that either Max provide a complete accounting, or no accounting whatsoever, seems to be missing the point. If users want to both see the site succeed, and help it to do that through donations and contributions, IMO, it isn't unreasonable to request an accounting of some sort. Not an IRS audit sort of accounting, but at least an overview of expenses, assets, operating costs, income, etc. is reasonable if people are interested in long term financial viability and wish to contribute to it. If Max is applying for non-profit status, he is required to provide all that by law anyway, as someone said--but not until he actually gets the status. So if he hasn't gone through the process of putting all the financials on paper yet for the application, it could be premature to suggest he provide his donors with an accounting, since it is all "goodwill" donations at this point. But if Max does get the non-profit status, I think it wise for the information to be in some easily obtainable form for member/donors who are interested in donating to a financially viable organization, and not throwing good money after bad. Just another opinion. BTW, I realize the guest who refreshed the thread is being confrontational. But that doesn't mean that a reasonable debate over the issue can't take place, does it? Or does it? Are some of the Mudcat members (and perhaps Max too) a little to defensive on this subject? That is what it looks like to me after a complete reading of the thread. Openness and honesty are always good business practices. Putting the information out there is one very good way of taking the wind out of one's adversaries arguments of this sort. |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Paul from Hull Date: 11 May 02 - 08:43 AM If this is the most 'insulting' & controversial Thread the Troll who refreshed it could find (& FINDING it, as Devilmaster said, speaks volumes for the efficiency of the Forum Search) in going back 2 years, then I'd say Mudcat is in a pretty healthy state! (though it might say something about the poor quality of Troll we are attracting these days too...) |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Celtic Soul Date: 11 May 02 - 08:06 AM Peg...This is the "refresh" that started this thread all over again: "Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: GUEST Date: 10-May-02 - 06:04 PM *refresh* £50,000, my arse" Is it any surprise that "GUEST" refreshed this debaucle? Next time, I pay closer attention to the date of originiation, and when (and by whom) it was refreshed. |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: GUEST Date: 11 May 02 - 04:56 AM Caterpillar Tractor had a problem with Mudcat.com since they wanted it for commercial purposes. It was not originally Max's idea to go "ORG"
This was in a previous discussion a few years back. |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Cappuccino Date: 11 May 02 - 03:32 AM Rather than actually demanding accounts, I think I'd simply like to ask, politely: "Max, is Mudcat's head above water at the moment? Are you managing reasonably OK?" But that's just out of friendly concern - not because I have any particular need to see your expenses. And I guess most of us would say exactly the same. Regards - Ian B |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Peg Date: 11 May 02 - 01:49 AM quite right, being a "dot org" does not make one a legally incorporated non-profit. In fact the opposite can also be true; for example, at www.witchvox.com, we ARE an incorporated non-profit (and also own witchvox.org but it is not in use as actively as the other domain). But I digress...anyone with no clue how expensive it is to run a website shouldn't bother with self-righteous demands for accounting.
|
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Celtic Soul Date: 11 May 02 - 12:30 AM Groucho Marxist says: "I assume from the ".org" designation that Mudcat is a non-profit organization. Perhaps I'm wrong about that assumption. I work for a non-profit and we're legally required to keep books with annual audited statements available to anyone who wants to see them". I add: dot org means no such thing. One of my bandmates performs with another group...they have a dot org address. Guess what? They're just a band, and they *can* turn a profit. The designation does not equal "Non Profit Organization" with all the legalities that implies. I have no idea what the laws are concerning donations to a ***FREE*** service such as the 'Cat. I'd say consult an accountant *before* posting questions like this, but that's just me. |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Bill D Date: 10 May 02 - 09:16 PM I disagree..troll only semi-alert..*grin* Thos who ARE alert are not fretting over it all.. |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: artbrooks Date: 10 May 02 - 06:52 PM troll alert |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Devilmaster Date: 10 May 02 - 06:36 PM refresh my arse. Well perhaps Guest can agree that the search feature of the threads can't be that bad. He found this thread to spit up. What was the point? Max, do yer thing, mate. And guest, if you don't want to give a donation, nobody is forcing you. *Yawn* Steve |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: GUEST Date: 10 May 02 - 06:04 PM *refresh* £50,000, my arse |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Susanne (skw) Date: 28 Aug 00 - 06:45 PM 1. I do agree with our guest that knowing where the money goes generally makes it easier to donate. 2. Anyone who knows anything about the technology behind this amazing tool will realise in a second Max has neither money nor time to spend on cigarettes, whisky or wild, wild women. 3. Somehow I would find it easier to trust in our guest's pure motives for his/her request if I knew his/her name. Heartfelt thanks to Max for all he is doing to keep this place going for us! - Susanne |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: DougR Date: 25 Aug 00 - 08:38 PM Well, Ebbie, the poster might thrive on discord, and also might love to "stir the pot." He/she probably got the reaction that he/she expected if that's the case. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Ebbie Date: 25 Aug 00 - 02:53 PM Judging by my own reaction, I suspect that this thread will end up having a positive effect: I promptly got on Max's secure line and made another donation. Sounds like others had the same response. I have to believe that the original question was not an innocent request for information. If it were, why wouldn't the question have been asked of Max, rather than of the members? All we could say is, don' know, don' care. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: katlaughing Date: 25 Aug 00 - 02:12 PM Goodonya Bert, I agree. Last I knew anyone who wanted to make a donation to a not-for-profit could designate that donation for a specific thing simply by writing the restriction on the check. We had people do that all of the time when I worked for the director of development at a center for the arts.
|
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Bert Date: 25 Aug 00 - 01:53 PM Max announced on Mudcat Radio recently that he is applying for 501 status. He has a 40 page form to fill out. The address for Mudcat is published above. Anyone who has any legitimate questions for Max is quite free to ask him. Any gutless wonder who is only interested in causing trouble can start an anonymous thread. Bert. |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: DougR Date: 25 Aug 00 - 01:48 PM I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Max's efforts to get a 501c3 rating were not successful, Joe. IRS regulations has made this designation a bit difficult to get these days. In most instances, I would guess the tax deduction is not that important to the donor where the Mudcat is concerned. If the Mudcat is not nonprofit, then Max has no obligation to publish financial reports. My opinion of course. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Aug 00 - 06:34 AM I believe Max tried to get registered as a 501(3)(c), and was not able to. If I recall correctly, he was able to incorporate the Mudcat Cafe, however. Maybe he or Bert or somebody will give us correct information on that. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Catrin Date: 25 Aug 00 - 06:02 AM I have learned something from this. Not to take things for granted. This site is wonderful and Max et al. deserve some recognition for that. I will make a donation as soon as my next pay check clears. Catrin |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: oggie Date: 24 Aug 00 - 06:37 PM I enjoy mudcat, it's fun, informative and lively. Thanks to Bill Sables, I have met some mudcatters who were the same (great evening at the Jug). I am grateful it exists. I care if it loses money because it might vanish, if it is profitable (which I doubt) I do not begrudge that either - good luck. Long may it exist and keep me entertained and informed!!! Who would you rather have - Mudcat or Wal-Mart? (substitute your own least favourite corporation) All the best Steve |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: Mbo Date: 24 Aug 00 - 05:30 PM To get back to music...
Ready or not, come what may |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: harpgirl Date: 24 Aug 00 - 05:10 PM Well, Groucho said it first. Sorry, didn't read every post as usual. But hopefully Guest isn't too frightened to read all the way to the bottom! |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: dwditty Date: 24 Aug 00 - 05:05 PM OK, everybody. Put your money where your mouth is. That way, no matter what your stance on this or any other issue, the Mudcat will be a better (and more peaceful) place. |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: SINSULL Date: 24 Aug 00 - 04:53 PM STUPID STUPID STUPID!!!! I fell into the second trap and confronted Shambles when we both actually agree on this problem. Damn it! My apologies, Shambles. You deserve better. My punishment will be to go out in the garden and sing Kumbaya until all the little children join in or a neighbor sics a dog on me. Mary |
|
Subject: RE: Can we have some Mudcat accounts? From: SINSULL Date: 24 Aug 00 - 04:50 PM "All of this strong reaction to the post is largely due to speculation as to who the poster may be and what their motives may be." No Shambles, it isn't. Please read my post. And carefully read the first responses to the original post. Logical reasonable replies and comments. The "Guest" then started the same old crap about nobody agreeing with him because he is a guest.And put in the usual Max bashing with a snide comment about Max not coming up with $45000. If that hadn't gotten an angry response, he/she would have slipped in another until someone bit, got angry, and "Guest Bashed". Why defend this behavior? I don't understand.
|
| Share Thread: |