 
| Sender: |
|
| Date: |
Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:22:35 -0500 |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Message-ID: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
| In-Reply-To: |
|
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
| From: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 4/8/2014 1:55 PM, Mark Schuldenfrei wrote:
>
>
> I wish I had "speculated" when I'd wanted to - because now I could do
> the "I told you so" dance.
>
> But I'll stand by what I wrote earlier today:
> "Other than to feel confident that this is probably another
> of the many SCA cases where good people in a rule-making
> position, out of a superabundance of caution and a soupcon
> of ignorance, stomp on things "in case there might be a
> problem".
>
>
I am not a tax attorney, an accountant, or an employee of the IRS, but I
believe the SCA way overdoes the "private inurement" bit...
And by the way, Murdoch, Lynette, and Their Majesties all have my
deepest sympathy.
Elasait, old used BoD member and kingdom seneschal back in the twilight
ages (not dark ages, because I know people who have been around since
the dark ages and I ain't them)
|
|
|
