[TriLUG] Upcoming vote on TriLUG non-profit status
bdmc at bdmcc-us.com
Sat Feb 5 15:03:40 EST 2011
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 11:25:42AM -0800, Joseph Mack NA3T wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011, Brian McCullough wrote:
>>> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011, Justis Peters wrote:
>> But in order for the treasurer to deduct expenses, that requires,
>> almost without fail, that the treasurer be running a business,
>> recognized by the IRS, where TriLUG's expenses could conceiveably be
>> shown as legitimate for his business.
> do you know this to be true?
> taxes don't operate at the level of "almost without fail" or
> "conceivably". What's true for taxes isn't rational. There'll be a rule
> and that's that.
Joe, since I am at work, and working from memory, I put in the qualifications.
I did not, however, say "incorporated business." I was just saying that in order to claim business expenses, you must be running a business. An ordinary individual can not claim business expenses.
That is one of the perceived advantages of "self employment" over "working for the man." However, on the other side of the fence, "the man" is responsible for all of the paperwork, corporate taxes, health insurance, etc., that comes with that benefit.
More information about the TriLUG