1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

N. Winston's Travel Expenses

Discussion in 'Shooting Related Threads' started by Hauser, Aug 15, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hauser

    Hauser Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    860
    I posted the following question to Neil in one of the other threads and didn't not receive a reply.


    In Bob Glatz's letter to Garry Sherrod dated 19 July 2010 he indicated the ATA's financial report showed you were reimbursed $1437.00 for travel expenses while he felt the correct number was $7475.00.
    How much were you actually reimbursed for travel expenses in 2009????


    For those that feel I started this post to embarrass Neil rest assured my motivation is to get a better understanding of the issues detailed in Mr. Glatz's letter to Gary Sherrod.


    I don't believe Neil did anything wrong regarding this issue but I don't know any other way to resolve the conflict between the figures.


    I fully understand that the accounting method used by the ATA which showed that Neil was reimbursed $1437.00 for travel expenses may be acceptable, but may also be deceiving if indeed he received more than $1437.00 and the additional money was accounted for in some other manner.


    Accounting methods aside the simple question a layman would ask is regarding this one issue is, how much money was Neil actually reimbursed for his travel expenses in 2009?

    The answer to that question is not intended to resolve legitimate differences in accounting methods, but is intended to determine how transparent the EC has been regarding expenses.


    Jerry Hauser
     
  2. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,848
    It's all there Jerry. If Bob Glatz said that, and I frankly don't know if he did or didn't, he just didn't understand it. Not my problem.

    In fact, the BOD was given a further breakdown at the meeting which, though the total was the same, explained some other stuff even I never knew, but then I never had the access to the records as Bob Glatz did. For example, I and each other member of the EC, was charged for everything provided to eat in the event center for the 2009 Grand. My share was $307. I do not recall eating $307 dollars worth of pickles and cold cuts, nor do I object this being charged to my name, and only mention it to help you in the understanding you so desperately seek.

    If Bob made a mistake, and as I say, I don't know if he did or didn't since I didn't notice his saying this though I did read what he wrote, of course, I really think it is up to him to explain it, not me.

    The other problem is, Jerry, that you didn't - or more likely couldn't - read the letter from Bob Glatz. In fact, it was all there too, in a couple of tables, copied directly from the audited financial reporT by Brady-Ware. Instead of causing me trouble, as you constantly seek to do, you have simply shown yourself to be a lazy and incompetent reader. I object to a thread like this. I spent 20 plus years as an officer of the ATA; you never even survived reelection after a _single year_ as secretary of the Arizona association. I have often wondered just how bad a job you could have possibly done to be booted out of a thankless job so few, generally speaking, are even willing to do..

    Neil
     
  3. Silver Hair

    Silver Hair TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2010
    Messages:
    22
    I am not a CPA. I did some traveling for my employer. I was only "reimbursed" for traveling expenses (received a check from employer) when I submitted an expense report showing I paid some expenses with cash. I had a credit card which was issued in my name, but was billed directly to my employer. I was not reimbursed for any charges made on the company issued credit card, only charges I paid in cash. Perhaps this can account for the different numbers.

    Sam
     
  4. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    Neil- I have a much more interesting question. The ATA is now a 503(c). If one spends $7,500 in travel expenses doing ATA business and is reimbursed $1,500 by the ATA, would that provide a $5,000 tax deduction? All ATA officers are well aware that serving the ATA costs them some money each year. Also, if one were to miss 45 days of work preforming ATA duties, would the lost income qualify as a donation and become a tax deduction?

    Pat Ireland
     
  5. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,848
    Beats me, Pat. Anyone who really kept track of what any of the jobs from Delegate to EC to Officer actually cost the officeholder would never do them anyway.

    Neil
     
  6. Texshooter

    Texshooter Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    710
    It probably costs $1437.00 to fill his gas tank. I wonder if you can expense off the cost of operating a Prevost Motorhome? It's not worth it to have the position. AJ
     
  7. Quack Shot

    Quack Shot Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,003
    It might be more appropriate to inquire directly with the person(s) that does the accounting in the ATA. You would then have access to the information they can provide to help explain the issue. Posting a thread in a public forum is likely NOT the way to resolve this. If you wanted to contact Neil directly, there is a PM feature on this forum as well.

    Two names were mentioned and if the letter has the information, then it would be more appropriate to contact the person that originated the letter and/or follow up with the recipient. Reading the letter may help to explain it, since it sounds like the information might be there.

    Reimbursements and actual overall costs may differ.
     
  8. joe kuhn

    joe kuhn Furry Lives Matter TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,178
    Neil - I've not done much but did organize a clinic at a local club once and man - it's alot of work. My money expenses were reimbursed, suprisingly down to the dollar, but time wise - there wouldn't have been a clinic if I hadn't orgainized it. Nine other shooters benefitted as well. It was worth it. Learned something from several perspectives.

    Thanks for what you do. I hope to attend the Grand next year.
     
  9. Hauser

    Hauser Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    860
    Here is the 4th paragraph in Mr Glatz's letter dated 19 July 2010.


    “The issue that seems to have caused all the controversy was a supplemental disclosure of expense
    reimbursements to EC members. After reviewing the disclosure with Judy it became apparent
    that the numbers were incomplete and didn’t paint a true picture of the magnitude of the actual
    reimbursements. We worked out a more comprehensive disclosure and provided it to the EC for
    comments. I’m told that the EC rejected the revised disclosure and insisted that the financial
    statement go out as originally drafted. I have included the actual disclosure along with the
    suggested revision as attachments to this letter.”



    Note: The “Actual Disclosure” referred to in the letter shows Neil was reimbursed $766 plus $671 for the Grand for a total of $1437.00. “The Suggest Revision” shows there was $5770 plus $1705 for the Gran for a total of $7475.00



    Jerry Hauser
     
  10. goatskin

    goatskin TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,781
    Pat, generally speaking, yes.

    The IRS is pretty generous, actually, in allowing both: direct & in-kind charitable deductions (if one itemizes), broad categories of Schedule C expenses and even Form 2506 filings.

    Annnnddddd, IRS is willing to give guidance and negotiate ... as long as they are convinced of good faith.

    I, personally, saw the Glatz sumbissions as a godsend to ATA ... a roadmap, if you wish, to 'doing things right' for the future as a large public charity and corporation that is positioned to take advantage of a the C-3 boon.

    IMO, the EC & Board needs to take Glatz to heart and (seriously) begin the process of becoming MORE transparent and MORE accountable. (and yes, it is a <i>process</i> that will take some time, perhaps a year or two.)

    Having been through a couple of IRS confrontations/cooperations in both the for- and non-profit worlds, Glatz' recommendations and observations make perfect **PRESCRIPTIVE** sense to me.

    Bob
     
  11. Dickgshot

    Dickgshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,676
    Unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses doing work for a 501(c)(3)is deductible as a charitabe contribution. Lost income or the value of services performed for a charity is specifically not allowed as a deduction.
     
  12. The Literalist

    The Literalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,874
    Location:
    Minnesota
    This post is another example of why so few ATA "big shots" refuse to post anything on this site.

    Neil has been either stupid enough, brave enough, or helpful enough to provide lots of great information on here...for years and years.

    Jerry, your years-long contributions have been to bitch, piss and moan, and second-guess.

    How 'bout giving the one ATA guy who tries to provide information a break?

    Not trying to embarrass Neil? Yeah, right.
     
  13. Singleshot

    Singleshot Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    218
    Hauser, you're looking like a fool. The two charts do not detail the same items. One is for directly reimbursed expenses - as in required travel - to individuals.

    The other lists some segment of ATA/Grand expenses which are apportioned by an undisclosed method - probably by simply dividing by the number of zones. In which case it is apparently a little misleading to many casual observers (or conspiracy buffs) to assign them to individuals, rather than to the regions.

    I run a company, and, after years of trying, am still unable to figure out why the accountants and auditors cannot show things plainly enough that everybody with at least a rudimentary education can follow them. Of course, if that were the case, we might not have had an economic meltdown a couple of years ago, and we might not need as many accountants and auditors as we have today.

    Not that I have anything against accountants and auditors. Or GAAP.
     
  14. goatskin

    goatskin TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,781
    Literalist: good point. I am neither attacking nor defending Neil Winston, but I appreciate him every day for his presence and engagement.

    I'll say the same for Jerry. He asks good, illuminating questions that need answers, and usually in a polite, respectful format.

    Singleshot. Yup. Agreed. I think one of Glatz' points (which, admittedly, he didn't elide well) was shifting direct & indirect 'related' a/o 'required' expenses (properly, IMO) from the corp to the individuals.

    The benefit to that is both ways: the corp does not have to fold those expenses into their 'allowable' 8% overage (read: profit), and the individuals can write them off fully, fairly and legally.

    Bob
     
  15. warpspeed

    warpspeed Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    570
    Location:
    Glendora, CA
    Here is how I see it. And I am not trying to defend Neil as much as I am telling those who choose to pick on him to bugger off.

    If Neil was reimbursed for his actual travel expenses and no more, then there is nothing wrong regardless of the amount. I have never met him but from what I can gather he appears to be a stand up guy and a man of good character. So give him the benefit and stop asking stupid questions that appear to be a personal witch hunt.

    I travel for work all the time. I get my travel expenses paid for 100% and no one ever questions them, they just get paid.

    I do not believe for a second that Neil in any way has tried to cheat or get paid for something that was not proper.

    Now, if someone else has decided to account for expenses that the ATA incurred by attributing them to Neil, that is not his fault nor his burden to explain to anyone. That is for the accountants to explain to whomever audits the ATA's books.
     
  16. jakearoo

    jakearoo Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,652
    Ah, once again, the acrimony which is so popular among trap shooters. Always refreshing.

    I don't know Neil Winston. I began registered trap shooting in 1965. Have not shot much registered in many years but have been around the sport my whole life. I have more than occasionally followed this forum for several years. \

    Neil Winston has amazed me. While I don't always agree with him, he has consistently given of his time and energy to the game. He has unceasingly gone on this open public forum and answered questions and concerns of the illiterati who so love to throw bombs from behind their keyboards.

    In my book, Neil is an honorable and unselfish man. I wish all public officials had his openness, accessibility and candor. Whether or not you agree with him, questioning his integrity is petty and ridiculous.

    But then again, as trap shooters, acrimony R us.
     
  17. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,848
    OK, Jerry, now I see what the problem may be. I only know what is in the audited financial report. If Mr. Glatz sent what is quoted to the EC, I did not see it because, though I remain, as a Past-President, a permanent member of the EC, I suspect Mr. Glatz sent his missive to the "sitting" EC. Thus I did not see his letter, nor do I know what it contained. I do not have a copy of the audited financial statement with me so I am unable to comment on any problems Mr. Glatz may or may not have had understanding it. Again, not my problem.

    Neil
     
  18. Quack Shot

    Quack Shot Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,003
    One thing is still a burning question in my mind. Since I don't see anything related to reimbursements for laundry, does that mean Neil is wearing dirty socks when traveling? I won't ask the obvious other question about other articles of clothing, but I think it really needs to be addressed in a public forum. :}

    The issue should not be what Neil has been reimbursed for, unless there appears to be some impropriety. The issue is likely the accounting methods used, and that would likely be something that needs to be addressed with the BOD, or other entity that has accountability for it. I don't understand why Neil has been made a target for criticism. I believe there may be a proper procedure and venue to do so, other than targeting someone on a public forum.
     
  19. blacklab

    blacklab Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    227
    Just because an accounting firm gives an unqualified opinion does not make the financials correct. Sometimes accounting firms point out that the treatment of certain items by the organization is wrong and should be changed. The organization will not make the change because it would have an adverse impact. The firm goes along because they do not want to lose the billing. Remember Arthur Andersen.
     
  20. Ken Brandt

    Ken Brandt Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    397
    Location:
    The Dark Side
    Texshooter, "PREVOST" You obviously have never seen Neil's motorhome!!!!

    Ken
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.