Question:

IMHO, you are worse off in that respect if you attempt to codify in the club rules the issue.  

I agree. if you start writing new rules in an attempt to mirror existing FAA rules, then you’ve opened the door for the insurance company to come along and tell you that you did it wrong, and in doing so, encouraged an illegal flight by a member.

Or the insurance company will point to a clause in your club policy that says members must comply with club rules, then use that as a loophole.  Check your club policy.  Ours required compliance by members with club rules/bylaws for coverage.  Every rule you add is another possible gotcha, so make sure you need any rules you add. Todd Pattist (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.) ___ Make a commitment to learn something from every flight. Share what you learn.

Response:

Pete, CJ, et. al, In light of my talk with the FSDO (see above), I would say you are all completely vindicated. Thanks for taking the time.  It’s been very instructive. — Roger Long

Response:

Pete, CJ, et. al, In light of my talk with the FSDO (see above), I would say you are all completely vindicated.

Above what?

Response:

"A Breath of Fresh Air From the FSDO" Thread. (I thought it would get lost in this thread which has grown pretty long.) — Roger Long

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – in Pete, CJ, et. al, In light of my talk with the FSDO (see above), I would say you are all completely vindicated. Above what?

Response:

"A Breath of Fresh Air From the FSDO" Thread. (I thought it would get lost in this thread which has grown pretty long.)

The only thing (below) that I saw (above) was the message number and header data. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — Roger Long in Pete, CJ, et. al, In light of my talk with the FSDO (see above), I would say you are all completely vindicated. Above what?

Response:

I think that having a club rule that attempts to duplicate a regulation in some other language just opens the door for grief.  Ask a lawyer.

Generally, I agree with that. The compensation issue is such a mess however because it has been so modified by opinions and case law scattered all over the place that you just can’t look at the FAR’s and know what to do.  You will also find differing interpretations everywhere, even from FSDO to FSDO. You can make the club rule more stringent, of course, but the members are not going to be happy with that.

We are not just trying to insure that members are legal when they fly, we are trying to avoid a possible long and expensive process of proving to the FAA or our insurance company that we were right.  Cost sharing at the edges of the envelope isn’t critical to any of our members. These rules are intended to keep members clearly on the right side of the line. You might have a test for new members that requires them to state what they think the regs mean, and you could have standards for passing the test.  Then you could keep the test on file to show the feds when it becomes necessary.  Another one to ask a lawyer about.

I can tell you, they would be a lot less happy about that! — Roger Long – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

I agree 100%!  It is absolutely the screwiest thing I ever heard of, too. However, I have in my hand a discussion of the FAA counsel’s opinion and an article by AOPA’s chief counsel about it.  If you are provided with free flight time, say moving a plane, the FAA considers that you gain an economic advantage, which is therefore compensation, by logging the time.  You may be able to use the hours to lower your insurance rate, get an advanced rating, better job, etc.  They do not consider the experience, joy, etc. to be compensation as long as it is not logged, because those things do not convey an economic advantage.  Screwey?, Very.  Complain to your congressman. — Roger Long

That’s a bit much, don’t you think?  Flight time is flight time, and

logging that time is what logbooks are for.  Yes, I know one kook once upon a time said, "Ooh, he’s logging that flight time towing gliders – he’s being compensated!"  Whatever.  That’s one of the screwiest things anyone has ever come up with and should be completely disregarded, especially in this case. I can’t imagine anyone getting bent because a private pilot ferried a flying club aircraft somewhere for some reason and then logged that time in order to show recency of experience. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – But that’s just me. — Larry Fransson Seattle, WA

Response:

. . . Having gone through the book and some other material, I’ve drafted a proposed rules addition for the club.  It should make a great target for this forum and, who knows, I might even learn something more.  These are rules for a club, an individual owner might skate closer to the line but I think these are good guidelines for staying legal. Anyway, here it is.  Potshots welcome.  I’ll be glad to explain my reasoning in response to any inquiries not preceded by flames.

I think that having a club rule that attempts to duplicate a regulation in some other language just opens the door for grief.  Ask a lawyer. You can make the club rule more stringent, of course, but the members are not going to be happy with that. You might have a test for new members that requires them to state what they think the regs mean, and you could have standards for passing the test.  Then you could keep the test on file to show the feds when it becomes necessary.  Another one to ask a lawyer about. Or you might insist that BFRs be given only by certain CFIs, who will make sure that "for hire" questions are part of the oral. Don

Response:

25.  Members who reposition the aircraft for club purposes such as maintenance or to        transport persons who will perform maintenance may record the time as "Club        Time" on the time sheets with the advance approval of the Maintenance Officer and        will not be charged for the flight time.  Members who accept Club Time do so with        the understanding that this time will not be entered in their logbooks.

That’s a bit much, don’t you think?  Flight time is flight time, and logging that time is what logbooks are for.  Yes, I know one kook once upon a time said, "Ooh, he’s logging that flight time towing gliders – he’s being compensated!"  Whatever.  That’s one of the screwiest things anyone has ever come up with and should be completely disregarded, especially in this case.  I can’t imagine anyone getting bent because a private pilot ferried a flying club aircraft somewhere for some reason and then logged that time in order to show recency of experience. But that’s just me. — Larry Fransson Seattle, WA

Response:

Anyway, here it is.  Potshots welcome.  I’ll be glad to explain my reasoning in response to any inquiries not preceded by flames.

I have to admit, I tend to agree with Don’s comments that duplicating regulations seems just to be asking for trouble.  Why not just say something like "all operation of club aircraft is limited to those allowed for the holder of a Private Pilot certificate, unless otherwise authorized"? Specific authorizations such as dual instruction by member CFI’s can be called out, but otherwise seems like all the extra rulemaking at best is redundnant and at worst could create loopholes or additional confusion on the part of your members. That said, in the spirit of your question… Seems to me that in #23, you need "d) Sharing of costs with passengers as stipulated in #24". In #24, no allowance is made for fuel.  Does the club always reimburse fuel expenses completely?  Where I’ve rented, there is usually a cap on fuel price, and the pilot is responsible for any fuel costs above that per-gallon cap.  If your club is similar, you’d want to allow passengers to share in that additional cost. Also in #24, no allowance is made for ATC service charges, as one would incur flying in Canada.  Does the club automatically pay those?  If they are billed to the pilot, that should allowed. I may have missed other direct operating expenses that ought to be allowed, given the spirit of the rules you’ve posted, but which are not.  This is one of the problems with writing a new version of existing rules…it’s easy to miss something or to create inconsistencies. In #24(b), what happens if the cost is not divisible by the number of passengers?  Is the pilot permitted to pay the extra penny or pennies?  May seem like a silly question, but again, when you write language like you’ve written, you open the door for this kind of issue. I find 24(c) to be both vague and potentially overly restrictive.  It appears to allow local flights in which "common purpose" may be defined however the pilot likes, and yet require 100% synchrony at the destination for a non-local flight (which would preclude one couple antique shopping and the other sitting on the beach, even though all are friends and are otherwise having a nice weekend together, for example). As for 24(d), a strict interpretation would prohibit pretty much all rentals by cash-strapped members.  When I was first starting out flying, I pretty much could afford no flying unless I brought a friend or two.  I couldn’t afford enough time in the plane to make it worth the drive to the airport. I agree with Larry that #25 is just plain silly.  It’s true that the FAA says a Private Pilot is not allowed to receive free use of an aircraft for services rendered, since that amounts to compensation.  But a) I see no reason to disallow Commercial pilots from receiving such compensation (ferry, repositioning, etc. are all legal under Part 91) and b) the club should not be asking non-commercial pilots to be doing such tasks anyway. Anyway, I’ll reiterate my feeling that your club is going a little overboard with all these rules.  But assuming you want to stick to that plan, the rules you’ve posted need some work, I think. Pete

Response:

Frankly, I would not try to address the issue with club rules. The club should simply require pilots to abide by the FARs and any insurance requirements. Attempting to interpret those FARs and putting them in the club rules puts the club in a funny position. Let the FAA enforce the rules against pilots flying for hire and keep the club out of it.

Response:

| I think that having a club rule that attempts to duplicate a | regulation in some other language just opens the door for grief.  Ask | a lawyer. | | Generally, I agree with that. The compensation issue is such a mess however | because it has been so modified by opinions and case law scattered all over | the place that you just can’t look at the FAR’s and know what to do.  You | will also find differing interpretations everywhere, even from FSDO to FSDO. | So what? How does this affect the club in any way, shape or form? The rules affect only individual pilots, not clubs.

Response:

We are not just trying to insure that members are legal when they fly, we are trying to avoid a possible long and expensive process of proving to the FAA or our insurance company that we were right.

IMHO, you are worse off in that respect if you attempt to codify in the club rules the issue.  Your insurance policy should cover you regardless of any cost-sharing or other legalities.  The only thing that should be open to question is whether the *pilot* is covered, as long as you clearly require the pilot to obey all applicable FARs.  However, if you start writing new rules in an attempt to mirror existing FAA rules, then you’ve opened the door for the insurance company to come along and tell you that you did it wrong, and in doing so, encouraged an illegal flight by a member. Less is more here.  Just as in a checkride oral exam, one shouldn’t volunteer more information than was asked for, you shouldn’t volunteer more rulemaking than is minimally required by your insurance policy and common sense.  Otherwise, you could be held to a higher standard, and found in violation of that standard. Pete

Response:

Yes, rates are wet and club pays for all fuel and oil.  If not, fuel and oil would be included.

What do you mean by "if not"?  Are you speaking hypothetically, or is there an actual situation with your club in which fuel and oil would not be paid for by the club? Also in #24, no allowance is made for ATC service charges, as one would incur flying in Canada.  Does the club automatically pay those?  If they are billed to the pilot, that should allowed. That’s never come up for us.  Everyone who’s ever gone to Canada just paid it.

"That’s never come up" isn’t a valid answer.  The question is "what happens if it DOES come up?" I don’t see any compelling reason why the club has to insure that a cost sharing member get every possible penny.  These cover the major expenses, any others are going to be just spare change and open us up to a long onerous process of having to justify them.

The only "long onerous process" that is caused is due to the extra rule-making you’re attempting.  If you simply required members to comply with the FARs, all would be fine.  As for whether the club "has to insure that a cost sharing member get every possible penny", IMHO you’re looking at it the wrong way.  Why should the club restrict the member needlessly? I don’t know the exact nature of your flying club.  The flying club of which I’m a member is more like a regular FBO than a club, due to its size. However, IMHO even a small flying club has a duty to offer its members the least restrictive environment practical.  The rules you propose seriously undermine the execution of that duty. In #24(b), what happens if the cost is not divisible by the number of passengers?  Is the pilot permitted to pay the extra penny or pennies? May seem like a silly question, but again, when you write language like you’ve written, you open the door for this kind of issue. Even the FAA is not that silly.  Common law and accounting practice recongnize that the penny is not divisible.

That’s not what I mean.  The rule clearly states each share must be equal, which is already self-evidently not always practical.  Beyond that, no stipulation is made for who pays the extra pennies.  Is the pilot in violation if the extra pennies are paid for by the passengers?  If not, why not?  If so, why isn’t that indicated in the rule? The funny thing is that the rule could easily be fixed by simply requiring the pilot to pay *at least* as much as any passenger.  Instead, you’d rather debate "common law and accounting practice".  I’m afraid the intent behind your post may have been more to prepare yourself for other critiques (so you can dig your heels in further), rather than an actual effort to refine the proposed rules. I find 24(c) to be both vague and potentially overly restrictive.  It appears to allow local flights in which "common purpose" may be defined however the pilot likes, and yet require 100% synchrony at the destination for a non-local flight (which would preclude one couple antique shopping and the other sitting on the beach, even though all are friends and are otherwise having a nice weekend together, for example). This has been interpreted both ways by different FSDO’s and in different cases.  If I was a single owner planning to got to Podunk for a meeting and a friend wanted to hitch along and go to a museum, I would let him share the expenses.  I think that, in a club, where we are all effected if someone else screws up, we need to stay a little clearer.

Define "stay a little clearer".  If you mean that your rule is somehow more understandable and clearly written than the FAA rules, I’d have to disagree. It’s just as vague, if not more so.  If you mean that your rule keeps the pilot more "clear" of a violation, I still have to disagree, since the vagueness of the rule prevents one from really knowing what’s allowed and what’s not, and in at least one perfectly valid interpretation, allows what would probably be construed as a commercial operation by the FAA. This is an area where someone could easily get in a jamb.  If a member went off the runway, the passenger might innocently say to an FAA inspector that the pilot "Brought me down to go to…."

I carry passengers along all the time who could quite properly state that I "brought me down to go to…" wherever, in spite of the flight not being a commercial operation.  I *did* carry them with the express purpose of bringing them to wherever I was going.  A statement to that effect to an FAA inspector would be irrelevant. Where the pilot would get into trouble is if the passenger told the FAA "I asked the pilot to fly me to such-and-such a place for lunch, so he canceled his golf plans and took me there".  And that’s only a problem if the passenger actually shared expenses with the pilot.  *And* all of that is covered quite adequately by the FAA rules.  There’s simply no need to reiterate those in club rules, nor is there a need to be more restrictive than the FAA rules. Until I know that our FSDO and insurance company considers going the same place for different reasons to be "commanality of purpose", I’d think we should stick with this.

Again, not my point.  It’s the definition of "different reasons" that I take issue with.  IMHO, just because the pilot and passengers are not doing the exact same thing at every moment during the rental period does not mean that they have traveled for "different reasons". If you don’t like the antique shopping/beach sitting example, what about the same trip (except everyone goes antique shopping), but now it’s bedtime.  If one couple stays up late to watch TV or have sex, while the other actually goes to sleep, do they now have "different reasons" for making the trip?  If the first couple is having sex, is the only way to make the flight legal to invite the second couple in for the romp? The bottom line is that your definition of "common purpose" and "different reasons" is vague, and the issue is already adequately covered by the FAA, at least as much as your club would ever need it to be covered. As for 24(d), a strict interpretation would prohibit pretty much all rentals by cash-strapped members.  When I was first starting out flying, I pretty much could afford no flying unless I brought a friend or two. I doubt this will crimp anyone’s style in our club.  If someone decides not to go flying because they can’t find a companion, fine.  This is just a warning not to leave a paper trail or have discussions that might be repeated in an investigation.  There’s a good AOPA article on this as

well. I doubt there’s a "good AOPA article" that suggests pilots who can’t afford to fly without passengers should not fly at all.  Furthermore, the reply that "I doubt this will crimp anyone’s style" isn’t a valid response.  The rules should not be about what you or someone else *thinks* may or may not be a problem.  They should be about what is reasonable. While obviously not of the same scale, the "I doubt this will crimp anyone’s style" is just like allowing lawmaking to remain on the books that prohibits (for example) sodomy just because either a) lawmakers think that such a law wouldn’t affect anyone or b) the law is unlikely to be enforced. The fact that you don’t think a rule will affect anyone isn’t justification for the rule. Our insurance does not permit uses of the plane that would require a commercial license.  I don’t want to split this hair with them.

Your insurance policy prohibits ferry flights, for maintenance, repositioning, or otherwise?  Seems to me you’d be better served by fixing the silly language in your insurance policy than writing new rules for your members. Speaking of silly, I don’t see any reason why a PP member should not make a flight they would otherwise consider routine just because the oil is going to be changed at the destination.

Huh?  No one’s saying the member should not be able to make such a flight. The rule is that the club cannot pay for the use of the plane in that case. Since a private pilot would only be permitted to make such a flight if he had already planned to take the plane to that destination anyway, the pilot should have no hesitation at all with respect to paying for the use of the plane himself. [...] We are all owners of the plane and owners are permitted to move their aircraft around.

Is that how your club is set up?  Each member is genuinely a part owner of your club’s plane?  If so, then I especially don’t see the problem with having a member (who is also an owner) pay for moving the plane as required. After all, when I as the owner of my own plane have to move it for the purpose of maintenance, I have to pay that expense out of pocket. If the individual owners of the plane aren’t willing to make the occasional flight out of pocket to get the plane where it needs to be for maintenance, then the club should be paying a commercial pilot to do so.  If your insurance won’t cover such flights, then you’ll have to find a commercial pilot with his own insurance. Since we have an hourly rate however, we have to insure that no member gains an economic benefit by flying the plane.  FAA, silly or not, says, "no logging, no compensation".  Easier to do it their way than get the rules changed.

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t comply with the FAA rules.  I’m saying that it’s silly for you to find it necessary to write rules attemping to codify your interpretation of the FAA rules. Pete

Response:

I have to admit, I tend to agree with Don’s comments that duplicating regulations seems just to be asking for trouble.  Why not just say something like "all operation of club aircraft is limited to those allowed for the holder of a Private Pilot certificate, unless otherwise authorized"? That said, in the spirit of your question…

See reply to Don above. In #24, no allowance is made for fuel.  Does the club always reimburse fuel expenses completely?

Yes, rates are wet and club pays for all fuel and oil.  If not, fuel and oil would be included. Also in #24, no allowance is made for ATC service charges, as one would incur flying in Canada.  Does the club automatically pay those?  If they are billed to the pilot, that should allowed.

That’s never come up for us.  Everyone who’s ever gone to Canada just paid it. I may have missed other direct operating expenses that ought to be allowed, given the spirit of the rules you’ve posted, but which are not.  This is one of the problems with writing a new version of existing rules…it’s easy to miss something or to create inconsistencies.

I don’t see any compelling reason why the club has to insure that a cost sharing member get every possible penny.  These cover the major expenses, any others are going to be just spare change and open us up to a long onerous process of having to justify them.  The intent of having flight rules like this is to give us a little margin so we are clearly on the right side of the line. In #24(b), what happens if the cost is not divisible by the number of passengers?  Is the pilot permitted to pay the extra penny or pennies? May seem like a silly question, but again, when you write language like you’ve written, you open the door for this kind of issue.

Even the FAA is not that silly.  Common law and accounting practice recongnize that the penny is not divisible. I find 24(c) to be both vague and potentially overly restrictive.  It appears to allow local flights in which "common purpose" may be defined however the pilot likes, and yet require 100% synchrony at the destination for a non-local flight (which would preclude one couple antique shopping and the other sitting on the beach, even though all are friends and are otherwise having a nice weekend together, for example).

This has been interpreted both ways by different FSDO’s and in different cases.  If I was a single owner planning to got to Podunk for a meeting and a friend wanted to hitch along and go to a museum, I would let him share the expenses.  I think that, in a club, where we are all effected if someone else screws up, we need to stay a little clearer.  This is an area where someone could easily get in a jamb.  If a member went off the runway, the passenger might innocently say to an FAA inspector that the pilot "Brought me down to go to…."  Until I know that our FSDO and insurance company considers going the same place for different reasons to be "commanality of purpose", I’d think we should stick with this. As for 24(d), a strict interpretation would prohibit pretty much all rentals by cash-strapped members.  When I was first starting out flying, I pretty much could afford no flying unless I brought a friend or two.  I couldn’t

d enough time in the plane to make it worth the drive to the airport. I doubt this will crimp anyone’s style in our club.  If someone decides not to go flying because they can’t find a companion, fine.  This is just a warning not to leave a paper trail or have discussions that might be repeated in an investigation.  There’s a good AOPA article on this as well. I agree with Larry that #25 is just plain silly.  It’s true that the FAA says a Private Pilot is not allowed to receive free use of an aircraft for services rendered, since that amounts to compensation.  But a) I see no reason to disallow Commercial pilots from receiving such compensation (ferry, repositioning, etc. are all legal under Part 91) and b) the club should not be asking non-commercial pilots to be doing such tasks anyway.

Yup, it’s silly.  See reply to Larry above. Our insurance does not permit uses of the plane that would require a commercial license.  I don’t want to split this hair with them. Speaking of silly, I don’t see any reason why a PP member should not make a flight they would otherwise consider routine just because the oil is going to be changed at the destination.  It’s good experience for members to have exposure to the shop and see under the cowl.  We are all owners of the plane and owners are permitted to move their aircraft around.  Since we have an hourly rate however, we have to insure that no member gains an economic benefit by flying the plane.  FAA, silly or not, says, "no logging, no compensation".  Easier to do it their way than get the rules changed. Anyway, I’ll reiterate my feeling that your club is going a little overboard with all these rules.  But assuming you want to stick to that plan, the rules you’ve posted need some work, I think.

Thanks.  This is very helpful preparation for dodging the eggs and tomatoes tonight. — Roger Long

Response:

            b) All persons on the flight, including the pilot, pay an equal share.

Surely the pilot should be allowed to pay more than his or her share. Similarly, any passenger should be allowed to pay less than his or her share.             d) The member’s undertaking of the flight must not be, or be represented to be,                  contingent on the participation or cost sharing of the other passengers.

I don’t see why that restriction is necessary.  If the pilot pays a pro rata share and the trip has a legitimate common purpose, the regs don’t prohibit a contingency on cost sharing. 25.  Members who reposition the aircraft for club purposes such as maintenance or to        transport persons who will perform maintenance may record the time as "Club        Time" on the time sheets with the advance approval of the Maintenance Officer and        will not be charged for the flight time.  Members who accept Club Time do so with        the understanding that this time will not be entered in their logbooks.

That strikes me as illegal for private pilots.  Undertaking a ferry flight and being given free flight time is completely equivalent to paying the normal rate for the flight time, and then being compensated by the same amount in exchange for the service provided (which is surely illegal for a private pilot, whether or not any time is logged). –Gary

Response:

Having just been through the FAR’s, had several phone calls with AOPA, and read a bunch of stuff, I can tell you that trying to figure it out straight from the FAR’s is what would require a lawyer to review each flight. Easy to say "Fly in accordance with FAR’s", our by-laws already do, but it’s actually very complicated to do in this area.  Most of the stuff you need to know about compensation isn’t in the FAR’s but buried in case law and letters of opinion from FAA counsel. We’re making it simple, follow these short, clear rules, and you should be safe from all but the most over the top FAA action.  The club also has an interest in avoiding any gray areas or pushing the envelope because we don’t want to be volunteering our time to splitting hairs with the FAA or insurance company. — Roger Long – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It seems to me the club is making it way too complicated. Does a member need to hire a lawyer to review each flight they make to insure compliance? Just state that all flights must be made in compliance with FARs and be done with it. Are the members actually in favor of all this?

Response:

It seems to me the club is making it way too complicated. Does a member need to hire a lawyer to review each flight they make to insure compliance? Just state that all flights must be made in compliance with FARs and be done with it. Are the members actually in favor of all this? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There have been some disjointed threads on the topic, the most recent of which  I started. I got interested in this because my flying club board felt that our flight rules should cover the basics of this issue. A couple days ago, AOPA sent me a great book which is a compilation of articles by their chief counsel and others on the topic.  Talking to their hot line people has been less than satisfactory but it’s a complex topic and I can’t fault them.  It probably had as much to do with my fuzzy questions and explanations as them.  I give them the highest marks generally and am proud to be a member. Having gone through the book and some other material, I’ve drafted a proposed rules addition for the club.  It should make a great target for this forum and, who knows, I might even learn something more.  These are rules for a club, an individual owner might skate closer to the line but I think these are good guidelines for staying legal. Anyway, here it is.  Potshots welcome.  I’ll be glad to explain my reasoning in response to any inquiries not preceded by flames. 23.  Members, including those with commercial ratings, shall not accept direct or        indirect compensation or expense reimbursement for operation of club aircraft or        participate in flights where they have knowledge or expectation of payments being        made by third parties for the flight.  The specific and only exceptions to this rule are:             a) Member CFI’s providing dual instruction, BFR’s, or checkout flights to other                 members.             b) Charitable flights approved in advance by the board and conducted in                  accordance with FAA regulations covering these events.             c) Members using the aircraft for transportation incidental to business in                 accordance with FAA regulations may accept reimbursement from their                 employer.  Employer reimbursement must be limited to hourly rate, landing,                 and tie down fees and may not exceed the pilot’s share if expenses are shared. 24:  Members may share the costs of a flight with passengers only when all of the        following conditions are met:  a) Shared costs are limited to hourly club rate, landing and tie down fees.             b) All persons on the flight, including the pilot, pay an equal share.             c)  All persons on the flight, including the pilot, have a common purpose in                  making the flight.  If the flight is to another airport, the common purpose must                  include the activities at the destination.             d) The member’s undertaking of the flight must not be, or be represented to be,                  contingent on the participation or cost sharing of the other passengers. 25.  Members who reposition the aircraft for club purposes such as maintenance or to        transport persons who will perform maintenance may record the time as "Club        Time" on the time sheets with the advance approval of the Maintenance Officer and        will not be charged for the flight time.  Members who accept Club Time do so with        the understanding that this time will not be entered in their logbooks.        Club time is only to be approved for maintenance related flights or for delivery of the        aircraft back to PWM after stranding due to weather or mechanical problems. 26.  Any flight which involves charitable donations, even if the pilot receives no        reimbursement, shall be reviewed with the board prior to being undertaken. — Roger Long

Response:

There have been some disjointed threads on the topic, the most recent of which  I started. I got interested in this because my flying club board felt that our flight rules should cover the basics of this issue. A couple days ago, AOPA sent me a great book which is a compilation of articles by their chief counsel and others on the topic.  Talking to their hot line people has been less than satisfactory but it’s a complex topic and I can’t fault them.  It probably had as much to do with my fuzzy questions and explanations as them.  I give them the highest marks generally and am proud to be a member. Having gone through the book and some other material, I’ve drafted a proposed rules addition for the club.  It should make a great target for this forum and, who knows, I might even learn something more.  These are rules for a club, an individual owner might skate closer to the line but I think these are good guidelines for staying legal. Anyway, here it is.  Potshots welcome.  I’ll be glad to explain my reasoning in response to any inquiries not preceded by flames. 23.  Members, including those with commercial ratings, shall not accept direct or        indirect compensation or expense reimbursement for operation of club aircraft or        participate in flights where they have knowledge or expectation of payments being        made by third parties for the flight.  The specific and only exceptions to this rule are:             a) Member CFI’s providing dual instruction, BFR’s, or checkout flights to other                 members.             b) Charitable flights approved in advance by the board and conducted in                  accordance with FAA regulations covering these events.             c) Members using the aircraft for transportation incidental to business in                 accordance with FAA regulations may accept reimbursement from their                 employer.  Employer reimbursement must be limited to hourly rate, landing,                 and tie down fees and may not exceed the pilot’s share if expenses are shared. 24:  Members may share the costs of a flight with passengers only when all of the        following conditions are met:  a) Shared costs are limited to hourly club rate, landing and tie down fees.             b) All persons on the flight, including the pilot, pay an equal share.             c)  All persons on the flight, including the pilot, have a common purpose in                  making the flight.  If the flight is to another airport, the common purpose must                  include the activities at the destination.             d) The member’s undertaking of the flight must not be, or be represented to be,                  contingent on the participation or cost sharing of the other passengers. 25.  Members who reposition the aircraft for club purposes such as maintenance or to        transport persons who will perform maintenance may record the time as "Club        Time" on the time sheets with the advance approval of the Maintenance Officer and        will not be charged for the flight time.  Members who accept Club Time do so with        the understanding that this time will not be entered in their logbooks.        Club time is only to be approved for maintenance related flights or for delivery of the        aircraft back to PWM after stranding due to weather or mechanical problems. 26.  Any flight which involves charitable donations, even if the pilot receives no        reimbursement, shall be reviewed with the board prior to being undertaken. — Roger Long

Response:

Question:

What happens if you take over a position and the fixed assets records don’t exist?   Say lump sum annual additions were recorded but there is no detail, no invoices, nothing.  What do you do? Hire a forensic accountant?  Hire a consultant to construct a fixed assets records based on fair-market value and estimated age? Help me, I’m clueless.

If the corporation has been subject to audit or review engagements in the past couple of years the accounting firm will probably have some, if not all, fixed asset detail as part of their working paper files. May cost you though If this doesn’t work I would start by determining what the longest life fixed asset you have is and therefore determine the max threshold you will need to search of your prior records.  Chances are this item will be a large building/land and you would hopefully have the original purchase agreement.  For the other classes of assets (which should be more recent) you may be in for some fun, hopefully your tax returns will have some info.  If not, you may need to hire a temp to go through some old boxes of invoices and help you recreate the subledger (reconcile to the lump sum additions) and book an adjustment for the difference between S/L and G/L.  As part of the project you may want to ask management about recent fixed asset disposals which may have been netted with the additions. Hope this helps, and good luck.   Alex

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Go make a list of what they have now. Ask employees about how and when and from whom they purchased the items on your list and then search cost records. What happens if you take over a position and the fixed assets records don’t exist? Say lump sum annual additions were recorded but there is no detail, no invoices, nothing.  What do you do? Hire a forensic accountant?  Hire a consultant to construct a fixed assets records based on fair-market value and estimated age? Help me, I’m clueless.

searching a/p invoice and G.L. records and possibly prior year tax returns are your best bet

Response:

Depends on the position you took over.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What happens if you take over a position and the fixed assets records don’t exist? Say lump sum annual additions were recorded but there is no detail, no invoices, nothing.  What do you do? Hire a forensic accountant?  Hire a consultant to construct a fixed assets records based on fair-market value and estimated age? Help me, I’m clueless.

Response:

Go make a list of what they have now. Ask employees about how and when and from whom they purchased the items on your list and then search cost records.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What happens if you take over a position and the fixed assets records don’t exist? Say lump sum annual additions were recorded but there is no detail, no invoices, nothing.  What do you do? Hire a forensic accountant?  Hire a consultant to construct a fixed assets records based on fair-market value and estimated age? Help me, I’m clueless.

Response:

What happens if you take over a position and the fixed assets records don’t exist?   Say lump sum annual additions were recorded but there is no detail, no invoices, nothing.  What do you do? Hire a forensic accountant?  Hire a consultant to construct a fixed assets records based on fair-market value and estimated age? Help me, I’m clueless.

Response:

Question:

Ah Jim – thanks for your reply, and I do look forward to hearing from you later. The practitioners dilemma – too busy, not enough time, too tired…. Maybe time for a change of vocation? I am in my third – (1) industry 15 years including training; (2) CPA public practice 17 years including a divorce; and (3) teaching, writing, mentoring, small business consulting – no overheads to speak of,  better hourly rate than practice, a free library, can chose whether i live by the sea or in the city … no ulcers, plenty of time, not tired.

I’m working on that. Many professionals I have studied have had multiple vocations, but the last is often inebriation at the farm or the seaside home.

I quit the sauce in 1982 – weekend before my 41st birthday.   I did have a few ounces of champagne at my daughter’s wedding a couple of years ago.   What I am doing now I can do until I drop, and then it will not be from exhaustion…and as long as they pout the Tax legislation and my notebook into the coffin, I will be just fine. Retirement is a change of activity – not a cessation of activity; a change of pace by choice and not from a heart attack or stroke.

I agree. Stay alive and well Jim! The profession needs people like you, and mentors like you.

Thanks for the kind words. At some stage I intend to follow this up, and someone in this group may be interested in such a study in US. It highlights a glaring       deficiency in some of us at the ‘essential’ level. Maybe it can be explained away culturally, and maybe it is more deep-seated than that.

I’m certainly interested.   Maybe someone has some comments or has made their own observations – the real issue is that this is NOT restricted to any one country. Does the profession attract the ‘wrong type’ of person? Is our education system at fault? There is a reason …

I agree that "there is a reason". Before we can answer your two extremely cogent questions, we need to deal with the "expectation gap".  Is the outside accountant responsible for the detection and reporting of fraud, most particularly with regards to public companies?   If the answer to my question is yes, then I would suggest that the answer to yours are also yes.  If the answer is no, I would suggest that the answer to yours is also no, and that the consuming public is exercising it’s ultimate judgment in deeming us no longer relevant. I’m hoping that by keeping this short we will get more comments from others. — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – At some stage I intend to follow this up, and someone in this group may be interested in such a study in US. It highlights a glaring deficiency in some of us at the ‘essential’ level. Maybe it can be explained away culturally, and maybe it is more deep-seated than that. Maybe someone has some comments or has made their own observations – the real issue is that this is NOT restricted to any one country. Does the profession attract the ‘wrong type’ of person? Is our education system at fault? There is a reason … Peter French PhD CMA Australia

Hi Peter, Haven’t seen you here in a while.  Welcome back. Your comments and questions are of great interest to me, however I am too tired at the moment to come up with anything worth reading.  I will comment further soon. Best regards, Jim Hudspeth

Response:

Ah Jim – thanks for your reply, and I do look forward to hearing from you later. The practitioners dilemma – too busy, not enough time, too tired…. Maybe time for a change of vocation? I am in my third – (1) industry 15 years including training; (2) CPA public practice 17 years including a divorce; and (3) teaching, writing, mentoring, small business consulting – no overheads to speak of,  better hourly rate than practice, a free library, can chose whether i live by the sea or in the city … no ulcers, plenty of time, not tired. Many professionals I have studied have had multiple vocations, but the last is often inebriation at the farm or the seaside home. What I am doing now I can do until I drop, and then it will not be from exhaustion…and as long as they pout the Tax legislation and my notebook into the coffin, I will be just fine. Retirement is a change of activity – not a cessation of activity; a change of pace by choice and not from a heart attack or stroke. Stay alive and well Jim! The profession needs people like you, and mentors like you. Peter

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – At some stage I intend to follow this up, and someone in this group may be interested in such a study in US. It highlights a glaring deficiency in some of us at the ‘essential’ level. Maybe it can be explained away culturally, and maybe it is more deep-seated than that. Maybe someone has some comments or has made their own observations – the real issue is that this is NOT restricted to any one country. Does the profession attract the ‘wrong type’ of person? Is our education system at fault? There is a reason … Peter French PhD CMA Australia Hi Peter, Haven’t seen you here in a while.  Welcome back. Your comments and questions are of great interest to me, however I am too tired at the moment to come up with anything worth reading.  I will comment further soon. Best regards, Jim Hudspeth

Response:

KPMG have knocked back taking in/over Andersen Australia. They are going with E&Y. The problem blocking any ‘merger’ is that we have an insurance group – HIH – that has crashed creating havoc in the local business and industry areas – professional indemnity, builders guarantee/warranty, general risk – and KPMG are the liquidators. There is a strong possibility that KPMG will seek the ‘recover’ from those who are ‘Andersen’ here. If the case wasn’t true, it could be humorous in parts. So you do not have it on your own, and accountants in US and Oz are not necessarily different in ethics or perspective. In 1990/1 when I did my MAcc [post professional research, not professional qualifying degree] I looked at some issues in financial reporting. One thing I looked at was the incidence of ‘qualified’ [conditional] audit reports. In 10 years i could not find one that had been issued where the company had paid fees in addition to auditing fees, to the accountants. There were qualified reports, but in these cases only auditing fees were paid. This covered the heady 1980’s, but obviously the practice became ‘habitual’? I did further research with accountants, lawyers, and company directors. the purpose was to gauge the degree of compliance with ethics, legal requirements and professional standards, in accounting and publishing external financial statements by public [listed] companies. My research centred on Australia and New Zealand in the context of our trade agreement. The responses form both countries showed a ‘compliance’ of almost 90% with ethics, the law, and accounting standards. A further ]embedded] question was posed – ‘…do you consider published financial statements are reliable/suitable for decision making purposes?…’ In one country I got a 90% positive response, and in the other a 19% positive response. At some stage I intend to follow this up, and someone in this group may be interested in such a study in US. It highlights a glaring deficiency in some of us at the ‘essential’ level. Maybe it can be explained away culturally, and maybe it is more deep-seated than that. Maybe someone has some comments or has made their own observations – the real issue is that this is NOT restricted to any one country. Does the profession attract the ‘wrong type’ of person? Is our education system at fault? There is a reason … Peter French PhD CMA Australia

Response:

May I recommend you study instances of disclaimers, if you find any? It has amazed me over the years to see how rarely certifying auditors issue disclaimers although this instrument is part of the official repertoire. Auditees often apply fee pressure on auditors which make a thorough audit impossible. e. g.: how often and meticulously do auditors take statistical samples these days? IMHO one should be seeing many more disclaimers than one does. A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA — If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender. PGP key fingerprint=F1C0 D9AE 1B18 1405 4DFA  B4CC 6DC7 FF78 C76E FB15 To Big Brother Echelon from "spook": Legion of Doom smuggle cracking Clinton domestic disruption Delta Force

Response:

Question:

In my opinion, Andrew, this is a job for an experienced professionally-trained accountant.  You may have "picked up" a lot of accounting knowledge, but I’ll bet there’s lots more you didn’t pick up.  You may be getting in deeper than you realize. 1. Yes, it MAY make sense to amortize the cost of customer acquisition over the term of the lease – or it may NOT.  Depends on the purpose of your exercise – cash flow estimate, tax estimate, or GAAP accounting. And whom are you preparing this for? 2. Some would include depreciation as part of COGS for leased units. Some would not, but would show COGS only as directly related to units sold – more or less as follows:    Sales –  COGS = Gross Margin + Lease revenue. It may also depend on how you finance the leased units. 3. I think you answered the third question yourself – MARKETING EXPENSE is not COGS. By the way, accountants consider "pro forma", "projection" and "forecast" to be 3 different things.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would definitely appreciate some help from anybody who has any insights, even if you aren’t positive of the responses.  Thanks. I’m developing a pro-forma financial projection for a new U.S. based business that will both sell and lease. communications devices. First question:  Some customers will purchase the unit (say, for $500), while others will lease the units (say, for $10/month over 5 years). Suppose it costs $60 to acquire a new customer (advertising, incentives, etc.).  In the case of a sale, I would expect to expense the $60 at the time of the sale.  However, in the case of a lease, does it make sense to amortize this amount over 60 months (the projected lease term), or should I expense it at the inception of the lease? Second question:  If I use the operating lease method, should the depreciation of the leased equipment be included as part of COGS? Third question:  Is it reasonable to include the aforementioned marketing expense as part of COGS? I’m an engineer by training; what little I know about accounting I picked up on my own over the past few years, so please bear with me if the answers to the above should be obvious… Thanks,   Andrew

Response:

I would definitely appreciate some help from anybody who has any insights, even if you aren’t positive of the responses.  Thanks.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m developing a pro-forma financial projection for a new U.S. based business that will both sell and lease. communications devices. First question:  Some customers will purchase the unit (say, for $500), while others will lease the units (say, for $10/month over 5 years). Suppose it costs $60 to acquire a new customer (advertising, incentives, etc.).  In the case of a sale, I would expect to expense the $60 at the time of the sale.  However, in the case of a lease, does it make sense to amortize this amount over 60 months (the projected lease term), or should I expense it at the inception of the lease? Second question:  If I use the operating lease method, should the depreciation of the leased equipment be included as part of COGS? Third question:  Is it reasonable to include the aforementioned marketing expense as part of COGS? I’m an engineer by training; what little I know about accounting I picked up on my own over the past few years, so please bear with me if the answers to the above should be obvious… Thanks,   Andrew

Response:

I’m developing a pro-forma financial projection for a new U.S. based business that will both sell and lease. communications devices. First question:  Some customers will purchase the unit (say, for $500), while others will lease the units (say, for $10/month over 5 years). Suppose it costs $60 to acquire a new customer (advertising, incentives, etc.).  In the case of a sale, I would expect to expense the $60 at the time of the sale.  However, in the case of a lease, does it make sense to amortize this amount over 60 months (the projected lease term), or should I expense it at the inception of the lease? Second question:  If I use the operating lease method, should the depreciation of the leased equipment be included as part of COGS? Third question:  Is it reasonable to include the aforementioned marketing expense as part of COGS? I’m an engineer by training; what little I know about accounting I picked up on my own over the past few years, so please bear with me if the answers to the above should be obvious… Thanks,   Andrew

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – says… Depends on state laws.  Dimples are legal in Texas and Governor Bush signed the bill. Wrong. In Texas a dimple is not a legal vote. As I understand it, Texas law specifically says a dimple is a legal vote.  But I believe the law was in place before Bush became governor. Bush signed a law that requires the chad to be fully punched or at the very least be attached at no more than two points.

Well, what I’ve read contradicts that.

Response:

rec.ponds….. uhhh… they were looking at some of the very upscale high end precincts of Miami.  In one case a worker turned down a black person cause "I didnt think he lived in our area".   Doesn’t surprise me one bit. They’re so intent on "proving" Gore won that they’ll count anything that that might help them achieve their goal.

List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List for care of goldfish go to http://puregold.aquaria.net/ Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who’s to blame

Response:

As I said earlier last week, organizations will come into Florida to complete the re-counts and finally let us know who really won Florida. Broward County will be the first to be looked at with ultimately all 67 counties to be counted.  Dumbyah will lose.  You can read in the following article.  The Associated Press, Washington Post and Miami Herald are three of the 17 petitioning organizations that will be part of the re-counts, paying $300/hour to do so.  Dumbyah will lose.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/18/broward.ballots/index. html — This is turtle. The recount is completed now and all party agree and the winner to be : Hillery Clinton. TURTLE Everyday is my first day in the business. Got my e-mail address back as above .

Response:

As I said earlier last week, organizations will come into Florida to complete the re-counts and finally let us know who really won Florida. Broward County will be the first to be looked at with ultimately all 67 counties to be counted.  Dumbyah will lose.  You can read in the following article.  The Associated Press, Washington Post and Miami Herald are three of the 17 petitioning organizations that will be part of the re-counts, paying $300/hour to do so.  Dumbyah will lose.

I thought the Miami Herald had already completed their recount. Forget how much Gore won by. (The only paper that picked up the story was the London Times.)

Response:

As I said earlier last week, organizations will come into Florida to complete the re-counts and finally let us know who really won Florida. Broward County will be the first to be looked at with ultimately all 67 counties to be counted.  Dumbyah will lose.  You can read in the following article.  The Associated Press, Washington Post and Miami Herald are three of the 17 petitioning organizations that will be part of the re-counts, paying $300/hour to do so.  Dumbyah will lose. http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/18/broward.ballots/ind…

Response:

Recently, "George" bellied up to the computer keyboard and typed… As I said earlier last week, organizations will come into Florida to complete the re-counts and finally let us know who really won Florida. Broward County will be the first to be looked at with ultimately all 67 counties to be counted.  Dumbyah will lose.  You can read in the following article.  The Associated Press, Washington Post and Miami Herald are three of the 17 petitioning organizations that will be part of the re-counts, paying $300/hour to do so.  Dumbyah will lose.

And what if "Dumbyah" wins…again?  My guess is that it won’t matter to you.  No matter what the votes say, Al Gore had some divine right to the presidency that George W. Bush stole from him.  Whatever… I used to think I would be glad when election day came because of all the campaign ads would go away.  Now, for some reason (probably jokers like this one), I kind of miss them… Jon W. — It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues. –Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)

Response:

If the Supreme Court has ordered the counts to stop, don’t they have to stop?  I am not sure why the ballots would be made available for private interest groups to manhandle.  It just doesn’t seem constitutional or accurate.  Andisn’t it in everyone’s best interest to become bipartisan and focus on the "people’s work" as Clinton called it?  If anyone cares to discuss it I’d be happy to meet you at "This Week in World Affairs" on Thursdays at 6:00 pm pst at parenthoodweb.com.  I see some interesting opinions. Traci Come Join the Fun at… http://www.parenthoodweb.com Log Directly into Chat at… http://phw2.parenthoodweb.com:4080/chat/world/html/login.html

Response:

If the Supreme Court has ordered the counts to stop, don’t they have to stop?  I am not sure why the ballots would be made available for private interest groups to manhandle.  It just doesn’t seem constitutional or

The ballots, during recounts going on now, are not handled by the parties who have requested access (Judicial Watch, Miami Herald, NY Times, W Post, etc.). They are handled only by the elections folks.  I found it interesting that Judicial Watch was involved – they even disagreed very vehemently with a higher up Florida Republican (Florida House or Senate) over access to ballots under Florida’s sunshine laws.  Some smaller counties have been fighting access because they don’t have the personnel to sit and count again.  I find the whole idea refreshing and highly interesting.  The post-election fights in Florida stunk, with groups from both sides coming down to interefere.  Wonder what would have happened if certain powerful officials had been of the opposite persuasion – Florida Supreme Court, US Supremes, Florida SOS, Florida Governor??  It will make for some interesting reading in years to come and doubtless in many changes to election laws.  I’m willing to bet folks will pay more attention for a while, which must be good.  It made me think of all of the times that US representatives have gone to other countries to oversee elections.  Happens frequently; too bad there wasn’t somebody more "neutral" to come keep us more "impartial" ) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – accurate.  Andisn’t it in everyone’s best interest to become bipartisan and focus on the "people’s work" as Clinton called it?  If anyone cares to discuss it I’d be happy to meet you at "This Week in World Affairs" on Thursdays at 6:00 pm pst at parenthoodweb.com.  I see some interesting opinions. Traci Come Join the Fun at… http://www.parenthoodweb.com Log Directly into Chat at… http://phw2.parenthoodweb.com:4080/chat/world/html/login.html

Response:

and it will show that GORE would have won florida, and that the new — read and post, rosie

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If the Supreme Court has ordered the counts to stop, don’t they have to stop?  I am not sure why the ballots would be made available for private interest groups to manhandle.  It just doesn’t seem constitutional or accurate.  Andisn’t it in everyone’s best interest to become bipartisan and focus on the "people’s work" as Clinton called it?  If anyone cares to discuss it I’d be happy to meet you at "This Week in World Affairs" on Thursdays at 6:00 pm pst at parenthoodweb.com.  I see some interesting opinions. Traci Come Join the Fun at… http://www.parenthoodweb.com Log Directly into Chat at… http://phw2.parenthoodweb.com:4080/chat/world/html/login.html

Response:

and it will show that GORE would have won florida, and that the new

And what will they be counting??? Those "dimpled chads"??? Those are not legal votes. Darn near anything could have been responsible for those dimples considering how much they’ve been handled. The only legal votes are those where the chad was fully removed or where there is no more than 2 corners holding the chad in place.

Response:

If you read today’s Miami Herald you will see that Miami-Dade County counted votes from dead people, unregistered voters, and residents from New York Dale – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And what will they be counting??? Those "dimpled chads"??? Those are not legal votes. Darn near anything could have been responsible for those dimples considering how much they’ve been handled.

Response:

from rec.ponds…… I am sorry I dont know who is upset by the cross posting, but the people replying are not known to me in rec.gardens, so I have to assume that some of them are in other newsgroups and the cross posting started there. Perhaps if we put where we are from, we can eliminate the rest.   Another suggestion for those that want to complain is get into dejanews, trace the thread back to the first person that did the cross posting and complain about them.   http://www.herald.com/  and http://orlandosentinel.com/ are participating in the recount.  In fact, as you point out, there are a LOT of papers joining in .. cause those "counters" hired by the election folks in each county are getting paid $300 bucks per hour, which is enough to stop all but the wealthiest candidates from asking for a recount, I guess.  I find it quite disingenuous that they cannot find people to do the count. Excuuuuuse me, but that is not what I call chump change!! The counting is being monitored by a very prestigious accounting firms hired by the newspapers.  In all cases the votes are being very well described, for example,  in the case of punch cards all possible categories, dimples, holes, 3 corner hanging, 2 corner hanging, etc. are separated.   What I find most interesting is some of those counties with advanced voting machines  where the OVERVOTE was examined.  People who filled in the circle for a candidate often went  lower down on the ballot and wrote  in the name of that candidate, causing an over vote.  Voter intent is obvious, altho enthusiastic.  Interesting that even "high tech" methodology has not eliminated all the reasons why votes are not counted.   What I am surprised at is that contrary to popular belief that if all counties were counted Bush would pick up votes in all the counties where he won, examination of the over count in one found another 130 net votes for Gore.  In that county, there were also plenty of votes for Bush where they made that mistake of filling in the name as well as filling in the circle. It is all going to be interesting.   Ingrid The ballots, during recounts going on now, are not handled by the parties who have requested access (Judicial Watch, Miami Herald, NY Times, W Post, etc.). They are handled only by the elections folks.

Some smaller counties have been fighting access because they don’t have the personnel to sit and count again.   List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List for care of goldfish go to http://puregold.aquaria.net/ Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who’s to blame

Response:

I saw the reference to unregistered and people from NY.  I dont understand how people who werent registered COULD get a ballot, and I dont feel like this is a big deal since in WI a person can bring in a gas bill, register and vote at the same time.  As long as they didnt vote twice.  I can imagine there are a lot of well to do people just retiring to Florida coming from various states that DO allow same day registration and just went in to vote like normal and they were allowed to.   Ingrid If you read today’s Miami Herald you will see that Miami-Dade County counted votes from dead people, unregistered voters, and residents from New York

List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List for care of goldfish go to http://puregold.aquaria.net/ Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who’s to blame

Response:

and it will show that GORE would have won florida, and that the new And what will they be counting??? Those "dimpled chads"??? Those are not legal votes. Darn near anything could have been responsible for those dimples considering how much they’ve been handled.

Warts on fingers?  Studded gloves? The only legal votes are those where the chad was fully removed or where there is no more than 2 corners holding the chad in place.

Depends on state laws.  Dimples are legal in Texas and Governor Bush signed the bill.

Response:

The only legal votes are those where the chad was fully removed or where there is no more than 2 corners holding the chad in place.

WHICH IS IT? — read and post, rosie

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – and it will show that GORE would have won florida, and that the new And what will they be counting??? Those "dimpled chads"??? Those are not legal votes. Darn near anything could have been responsible for those dimples considering how much they’ve been handled. The only legal votes are those where the chad was fully removed or where there is no more than 2 corners holding the chad in place.

Response:

says… If you read today’s Miami Herald you will see that Miami-Dade County counted votes from dead people, unregistered voters, and residents from New York

Doesn’t surprise me one bit. They’re so intent on "proving" Gore won that they’ll count anything that that might help them achieve their goal.

Response:

says… Depends on state laws.  Dimples are legal in Texas and Governor Bush signed the bill.

Wrong. In Texas a dimple is not a legal vote.

Response:

says… Depends on state laws.  Dimples are legal in Texas and Governor Bush signed the bill. Wrong. In Texas a dimple is not a legal vote.

As I understand it, Texas law specifically says a dimple is a legal vote.  But I believe the law was in place before Bush became governor.

Response:

If you read today’s Miami Herald you will see that Miami-Dade County counted votes from dead people, unregistered voters, and residents from New York Dale

I did read that article, and it only mentioned one vote from a dead person. Cases of unregistered voters seemed to be primarily people who voted in the wrong district, usually because they had moved and went back to their former district to vote.  I found it disturbing that some election workers were either inexperienced or for other reasons didn’t follow the rules.

Response:

and it will show that GORE would have won florida, and that the new And what will they be counting??? Those "dimpled chads"??? Those are not legal votes. Darn near anything could have been responsible for those dimples considering how much they’ve been handled. The only legal votes are those where the chad was fully removed or where there is no more than 2 corners holding the chad in place.

In the case of the Miami Herald, they’ve said they’ll be reporting *what* they find and leaving it to the reader to interpret the findings.  So if they do find a number of dimpled chads, you’re free to disregard those results. OTOH, the Palm Beach Post has reported that, despite Republican claims of fallen chads "littering the floor" during previous recounts, they’ve only lost 4 chads out of a few hundred ballots.

Response:

says… Depends on state laws.  Dimples are legal in Texas and Governor Bush signed the bill. Wrong. In Texas a dimple is not a legal vote. As I understand it, Texas law specifically says a dimple is a legal vote.  But I believe the law was in place before Bush became governor.

Bush signed a law that requires the chad to be fully punched or at the very least be attached at no more than two points.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you read today’s Miami Herald you will see that Miami-Dade County counted votes from dead people, unregistered voters, and residents from New York Dale I did read that article, and it only mentioned one vote from a dead person. Cases of unregistered voters seemed to be primarily people who voted in the wrong district, usually because they had moved and went back to their former district to vote.  I found it disturbing that some election workers were either inexperienced or for other reasons didn’t follow the rules.

To me that simply proves that the dems just can’t get anything right, they were in charge in those locations. And it’s no wonder the workers don’t follow the rules, their leaders have led them to believe rules are made to be broken.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you read today’s Miami Herald you will see that Miami-Dade County counted votes from dead people, unregistered voters, and residents from New York Dale I did read that article, and it only mentioned one vote from a dead person. Cases of unregistered voters seemed to be primarily people who voted in the wrong district, usually because they had moved and went back to their former district to vote.  I found it disturbing that some election workers were either inexperienced or for other reasons didn’t follow the rules. To me that simply proves that the dems just can’t get anything right, they were in charge in those locations. And it’s no wonder the workers don’t follow the rules, their leaders have led them to believe rules are made to be broken.

Gary, you know that Bush lost in Florida, admit it.  Bush knows it, that’s why he fought the recounts from DAY ONE!  The recounts now being conducted will prove it, just hang around for the results, okay?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – says… Depends on state laws.  Dimples are legal in Texas and Governor Bush signed the bill. Wrong. In Texas a dimple is not a legal vote. As I understand it, Texas law specifically says a dimple is a legal vote.  But I believe the law was in place before Bush became governor. Bush signed a law that requires the chad to be fully punched or at the very least be attached at no more than two points.

        And think of all the jammed chad channels on all those machines in all those poor districts. No wonder W got elected.         Clear intent of the voter. Here, take this ballot, and this stylus. Now, dimple that chad without pushing it out.         The dirty little secret is out. —         BBB Zipped sig file. To unzip, click here:  

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you read today’s Miami Herald you will see that Miami-Dade County counted votes from dead people, unregistered voters, and residents from New York Dale I did read that article, and it only mentioned one vote from a dead person. Cases of unregistered voters seemed to be primarily people who voted in the wrong district, usually because they had moved and went back to their former district to vote.  I found it disturbing that some election workers were either inexperienced or for other reasons didn’t follow the rules. To me that simply proves that the dems just can’t get anything right, they were in charge in those locations. And it’s no wonder the workers don’t follow the rules, their leaders have led them to believe rules are made to be broken. Gary, you know that Bush lost in Florida, admit it.  Bush knows it, that’s why he fought the recounts from DAY ONE!  The recounts now being conducted will prove it, just hang around for the results, okay?

Yeahbut, you don’t get it. Bush ran out the clock, so he won! ‘The art of the game.’ —         BBB Zipped sig file. To unzip, click here:  

Response:

Question:

Are there any small business accounting software products that will accommodate a payroll system where the employees are paid by the amount of work done, not just an hourly or salary system? We operate a delivery service where our employees are paid by the run.  We use an Access database both for employee scheduling and to record what work they’ve done.  I’m currently using an Excel spreadsheet as a general ledger.  It’s been working pretty well, but I’m just wondering if there is something better… I’ve tried Peachtree Accounting, Quickbooks, and MYOB, but none of these appear to permit paying on a piece work basis. -jg * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

I think MOST payroll software can accommodate piecework rates – if you don’t mind calling a "piece" or "run" an "hour". Using QuickBooks as an example – you would filter certain payroll reports by Payroll Item to distinguish "piece-hours" from "time-hours". – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Are there any small business accounting software products that will accommodate a payroll system where the employees are paid by the amount of work done, not just an hourly or salary system? We operate a delivery service where our employees are paid by the run.  We use an Access database both for employee scheduling and to record what work they’ve done.  I’m currently using an Excel spreadsheet as a general ledger.  It’s been working pretty well, but I’m just wondering if there is something better… I’ve tried Peachtree Accounting, Quickbooks, and MYOB, but none of these appear to permit paying on a piece work basis. -jg * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s

Discussion Network * – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

Suggest looking at Interac from Intersoft Systems,Inc.  Their payroll has 99 user definable other pays, beyond hourly, salary, etc..   An other pay can be defined as a piece.  Their payroll rate file would also give you opportunities to give different rates to different items. Their web page is www.intersoftsystems.com .

Response:

Here are 2 possible solutions. 1) Get a piece-rate front end, such as used in agriculture.  I don’t have their web URL, but I remember their phone #: 1-800-DATA-2-GO.   2) The simplest solution based on UA Corporate Accounting (which integrates well with Access and Excel) is create a commissionable inventory item called Delivery.  The commission would be, say $10. The salesman (driver) who sells 5 items (makes 5 deliveries) gets $50 commission (piece-rate earnings). It may sound clumsy, but it has to be better than using Excel for GL. Respectfully,  - Carl Dick www.cpaccess.com 800-997-7944 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Are there any small business accounting software products that will accommodate a payroll system where the employees are paid by the amount of work done, not just an hourly or salary system? We operate a delivery service where our employees are paid by the run.  We use an Access database both for employee scheduling and to record what work they’ve done.  I’m currently using an Excel spreadsheet as a general ledger.  It’s been working pretty well, but I’m just wondering if there is something better… I’ve tried Peachtree Accounting, Quickbooks, and MYOB, but none of these appear to permit paying on a piece work basis. -jg * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Respectfully,   – Carl Dick www.cpaccess.com 800-997-7944 949-261-2694  California, USA

Response:

Question:

I don’t see Intuit as tomorrow’s software company at all. I see their products rather as the climax generation of 16-bit, standalone, non-interoperable software.

If Intuit continues with the direction of their current products, you are probably right. They had better reevaluate their long-term strategy, and many of the points made in this thread would send them down (IMO) the right road. If they don’t open up their data format for the near future, and create a high-end QuickBooksSQL that can use standard DBs like Oracle, MS-SQL, etc., they’re going to be leap-frogged. And I think you know who’ll be the one… … I often wonder why you don’t see Microsoft selling G/L software.  They’re smart enough to know the market needs, and deserves, more functionality.  Perhaps Microsoft is still trying to figure out how to do accounting software right.

I bet that Microsoft will come out with something in the next couple of years that does just that. An SQL DB pre-configured with the necessary fields and tables, an accounting front-end that delivers accountant features, a bookkeeping front-end for the company, and — since the DB is an open format — the ability for developers to write custom data-collection front-ends to dump all the daily sales transactions into it. Getting sick of arbitrary differences on these basic things, after 50 years of computing the differences are just proprietary B.S.

Boy, you got that right! And importing/exporting data needs to become a thing of the past. Just log on to the database, wherever it resides, with the appropriate client front-end, and do what you need. If I never saw another disk with an "accountant’s copy," or mapped a real DB to an *.IIF format file, I’d be a bit happier. — Jeff Hamblin www.qtools.com

Response:

*You have to market yourself and convince somebody that       you are generating value.  

And, to do that, you actually have to believe you are doing that.  Many times accountants simply don’t even think about generating value for their clients, which means they really can’t come up with a reason why a client should use them. This is why I must part ways with the QB and PT ledgers.  They’re not nearly flexible enough.  They need at least 2 or 3 user definable attributes on each row of each transaction. What they’ve done instead is cheat.  They have glued together a payroll system that’s marked by Emp, and a Sales journal that;s marked by Customer, and a Purchase journal that’s marked by Vendor.  

I agree that additional flexibility would be nice, but the hitch is that you have to deal with a couple of facts. First, the "great unwashed" who have no formal training are enticed very quickly by the "simple" front end.  User definable attributes are great, but they generally require a thinking process in seeing how to use them and what to do with them that’s difficult for the novice to handle.  I would agree that if someone can bridge that issue, they are going to have a big winner–but I suspect it will take quite awhile before someone hits on how to do it. Second, many of those with the training seem to resist change at all costs.  They just aren’t likely to "lead the charge" for any radical new systems–as many of those that have developed such systems have found. There are a number of forward thinking G/Ls out there, but they all lack the highly polished QB interface for the nonprofessional.  And they’re not "standard", they lack market shares.  Clients don’t trust them or the practitioner. They’re scared to death of being tied to a sole-source CPA.   And they’re right.  

Of course, though, that creates a classic chicken/egg situation–no one wants to use a product that has little market share, but no product can get market share until people start to use it.   I don’t see Intuit as tomorrow’s software company at all.   I see their products rather as the climax generation of 16-bit, standalone, non-interoperable software.  

Maybe–but they’ve been in that position for quite a while and nobody has knocked them off yet.  I suspect that as long as they continue to make progress and avoid major gaffes, they are going to control the low end accounting market. In my view, these mass-market ledgers are really inhibiting progress.  

Actually, part of the problem will be the users.  You have to *educate* them about why they need your software.  Most of them understand a checkbook and maybe can deal with invoicing.  However, advanced customizable reporting systems are beyond their capabilities and they don’t understand *why* they’d want it. They want QuickBooks now because it does what they’ve always done. One important issue to remember, though, is that many successful businesses are managed using data *other* than that which appears in the accounting system.  The importance of determining just what is the "key information" is crucial in running a business, and you may find that much of that information is not to be found inside the traditional ledgers. I often wonder why you don’t see Microsoft selling G/L software.  They’re smart enough to know the market needs, and deserves, more functionality.  Perhaps Microsoft is still trying to figure out how to do accounting software right.

Microsoft has tried a couple of times, with the short lived Microsoft Profit (it was sold back to Great Plains as I recall) and, on the very low end, with the less than overwhelmingly successful Microsoft Money. Ed Zollars, CPA (AZ) http://www.getnet.com/~hmtzcpas

Response:

Hi Myron, thanks for your post. QuickBooks users are a major source of revenue for our firm. We provide setup, fixup, telephone support, and completion

You see?  Quickbooks quite often results in such a hairball of mixed up information that it consumes a lot of professional time to sort out.  Hence the larger fees. Far better if you could give them just a few screens, that look a lot like their business and are as convenient to use as QB. And fine, for users who are ready, give them more.  Give them the bank reconcilation.  Give them the General Journal. But don’t give them a ledger  with the powers to revise transactions that have already been reviewed, change net income of prior periods, enter misdated transactions, without knowing who or why it was done.   And then charge them $70/hour fixing it up. Give them a ledger that remembers what’s been reviewed and has built-in powers to show you what’s been done since last time. And user ID’s to see, who posted what. Give them something where a month STAYS closed when you close it.  Something that you can get in front of you without driving over there and zipping onto a floppy.  Something they can keep using while you’re reviewing it.

Response:

As I write this I am asking myself, why am I encouraging accountants of wake up to the opportunity technology offers. I am better off if we are the only firm who is trying to take advantage of this opportunity.

Don’t worry–enough will ignore the opportunity to leave more than enough room for those that can go after the opportunities rather than only seeing the problems.  As I noted in another post, accountants generally seem to be programmed to see any change as a terrible thing, rather than noticing that changes always breed opportunities for those that can grab hold of them. Ed Zollars, CPA (AZ) http://www.getnet.com/~hmtzcpas

Response:

The change in the accounting business over the next few years will be radical. [...] 1) As an accountant, there is little work to do that can’t be done better, faster, more accurately, and for less money by a computer.  This includes almost everything the CPA does.  The biggest problem I have in my office is convincing other CPAs of this fact.  Their involvement in their work is nearly superflous. 2) Intuit’s obvious problems aside, they are quickly becoming to the software industry what Microsoft has become to the OS & Office Suite business.  And they have a lot of cash to buy up the competition with.  In addition, you’ll see QB move toward replacing some of the high end products…..

Right on!   Are you ready for this:  the completely virtual CPA firm, whose members have never seen each other in person? Where it’s at is on the server anyways.  Unless you have approx $250,000 plus $100,000/year for maintenance, the CPA firm isn’t going to have their own secure host with big bandwidth, onsite engineer for 24×7 uptime anyway. I envision a future where big, fully featured transaction servers will be hosted by well-capitalized web site operators and CPA’s will finally be relieved of what we’ve been doing so poorly these last 20 years, implementing software. Instead, most rank-and-file CPAs  will be back where we belong, training and educating and enabling managers and administrators throughout this great and diverse economy. The Big 6 having abused and mistreated their IT staffs for a generation will have a tough time implementing any of this. They won’t be competitive with pure engineering-oriented web site operators, on price/performance.  They’ll just be customers of the infrastructre industry, much like local CPAs. What city are you in, DRay?

Response:

Today small firms have access to a lot more options to leverage their advantages while helping to make up for their "aloneness".  Usenet is, in fact, one such tool that can be used by the smaller firm to gain access to the expertise of others that used to be one of the major unique advantages of practicing in a large firm.  I can today call on resources from across the country today that dwarf those available to many in "larger" firms.

We can see this because in the professions, we have inherited a pearl of great value:  the notion of operating independently. Because of pure good fortune, automation helps one industry more than another.  Because we’re culturally ready to operate as fully autonomous practitioners, the internet and the web are very useful to us.  For those other guys, in manufacturing or education lets say, the web is fairly useless.   They don’t need to take credit cards online.  They have no use for an LLC or for accounting databases capable of allocating revenue or expenses according to their time and billings. To graduate from the medieval employee-employer model of human behavior requires a level of maturity most workers haven’t achieved.   You have to be firing on all 8 cylinders. *You have to consistently generate value every day. *You have to market yourself and convince somebody that        you are generating value.   *You have to do it economically, without wasting or consuming       a lot of resources.     *You have to keep track of all this stuff in your ledger, *You have to settle your payables and actually collect your       receivables…. and so forth. As ranks of workers in various industries mature into real professionals, they’ll appreciate multidimensional accounting systems capable of reflecting or modelling their economic reality, and doing it efficiently, freeing them to do what they’re good at.   When you can mark every dollar and cent as to the Cust, Emp, Dept, and Vendor, Job.   Not just the Sales Journal dollars, or the Purchases dollars. This is why I must part ways with the QB and PT ledgers.  They’re not nearly flexible enough.  They need at least 2 or 3 user definable attributes on each row of each transaction. What they’ve done instead is cheat.  They have glued together a payroll system that’s marked by Emp, and a Sales journal that;s marked by Customer, and a Purchase journal that’s marked by Vendor.   There are a number of forward thinking G/Ls out there, but they all lack the highly polished QB interface for the nonprofessional.  And they’re not "standard", they lack market shares.  Clients don’t trust them or the practitioner. They’re scared to death of being tied to a sole-source CPA.   And they’re right.   I don’t see Intuit as tomorrow’s software company at all.   I see their products rather as the climax generation of 16-bit, standalone, non-interoperable software.   It does not amaze me, or impress me, how well these ledgers work since they leave the challenge of data sharing completely unaddressed, and also avoid most of the challenge of modelling vertical industries.  They’re just money-tracking software.   They are a prick tease. In my view, these mass-market ledgers are really inhibiting progress.   … I often wonder why you don’t see Microsoft selling G/L software.  They’re smart enough to know the market needs, and deserves, more functionality.  Perhaps Microsoft is still trying to figure out how to do accounting software right. Maybe they’ll realize the mathematical symmetry behind all of accounting, and deliver a least-common denominator software design that is capable of growing and adapting to the market.  I wish MS would package something with Small Bus. Server, that would at least give us standard field names and data types for the Customer table, and the Transaction table.   Getting sick of arbitrary differences on these basic things, after 50 years of computing the differences are just proprietary B.S. * Todd F. Boyle CPA              www.isomedia.com/homes/tboyle * 9745-128th Av NE, Kirkland WA 98033       (425) 827-3107 * Fax (425) 576-0616

Response:

1) As an accountant, there is little work to do that can’t be done better, faster, more accurately, and for less money by a computer.  This includes almost everything the CPA does.  The biggest problem I have in my office is convincing other CPAs of this fact.  Their involvement in their work is nearly superflous.

I agree there’s a problem getting CPAs to see technology as being useful.  However, I don’t think technology removes the CPA from mix so much as it changes what he/she does for the client.  We still serve many of the same clients we did 15 years ago, and we still end up billing them amounts that are about the same (adjusted for inflation) as we did before. However, what we are doing is quite a bit different and how we go about it also has changed. What technology has done is allowed us to move the "drudgery" to the clients, while reducing the time that even the client spends on the work (everyone wins).  Fifteen years ago we did a lot of write up work, starting from check stubs, client paper one write systems, etc.  Today we generally start with those same clients from at least a set of books with all cash activity recorded, and we are merely adjusting and then helping the client use those figures and, more importantly, *INTERPRET* them. CPAs that have failed to make use of the technology tools available to them have seen their revenues drop and find themselves under incredible pressure to accept lower realized billing rates.  However, those that have made use of technology have seen just the opposite. Last week they called back, amazed at some of the stuff they could do with it.  QB is not perfect for a lot of reasons, but Intuit has the ability to fix it.

To quote from a speaker at the AICPA’s Practitioners Conference held back in May in Las Vegas–"if you are still fighting QuickBooks, the battle is already over and you’ve lost."  That said, though, there are still lots of uses for CPAs in that situation.  Your own example of being able to see that the client *could* make use of the product and it was the most cost effective means to solve their problem was worth something to them.  More importantly, it helped establish your credibility with the client (note I didn’t say your firms–I said yours <grin). 3) After end users can do their own bookkeeping and transfer their data automatically to their entity returns, 90% of what they use accountants for is gone.  

You know, that has been technically possible for years, but clients generally *DON’T* want to do that and, more importantly, they find they really can’t.  I can still spot problems on returns that the client would never see (but the IRS would <grin).  More importantly, though, I try to assure that clients see me not as the person that prepares their 1120, 1120S, 1040, etc, but rather as someone that helps outline their tax and business strategy.   In the tax arena, our value comes *before* year end, not when preparing the year end tax return.  As a practical matter, I wouldn’t mind losing that <grin but I don’t see it happening any time soon.  A similar situation arises from financial statements–we can talk about what information can be gathered from the statements and how to get the business going the direction the owner wants it to go in. One real problem I see, though, is that CPAs tend to believe a client won’t pay for that type of work, but is, for some totally unexplained reason, perfectly happy to pay for 1040’s and compiled/reviewed financial statements that are simply dumped on their doorstep.  I happen to believe it’s just the opposite–they hate paying for 1040’s and financial statements (usually some other entity, like the bank or the IRS,  is forcing them to have those done), but are very interested in someone helping them make or save money. The rest is computer work.  While audits will continue, mostly larger firms will be doing them I’d think (audit work comprises only about 50K of our annual fees, and I’m not so sure it is even worth it given the peer review and all that crap we have to go through).

Larger firms have seen compliance work go flat for years, so they aren’t going to be rushing into this void <grin. Seriously, audits have never been a major source of revenue to our firm, even back 15 years ago.  They are much less so today, but that’s mostly by design–we’ve not been searching out audit work. In short, I think the traditional role of the CPA is near death.  All we need is some really good tax reform giving us a NST in lieu of an income tax, and the CPA business is gone.

I don’t know–I do pretty well billing for sales tax exams <grin and likely will do a lot better when the rates are set at the levels necessary for a national sales tax to replace the current income tax.  The transition rules will also give us years of work, so that anyone over the age of 30 likely wouldn’t have a problem <grin. The CPA firm has been changing over the past 20 years and will continue to do so.  There is this perspective that accountants tend to have that all change is bad–that’s not true, and certainly not true if you have an ability to adapt.  This adaptability is what helps the smaller firm (especially the sole propreitor) vs. the larger competitor. Largeness helps when you get to a standardized process that can be done repetitively, but technological change is making that standardization virtually impossible–by the time a standard system is in place, it’s outdated <grin. Today small firms have access to a lot more options to leverage their advantages while helping to make up for their "aloneness".  Usenet is, in fact, one such tool that can be used by the smaller firm to gain access to the expertise of others that used to be one of the major unique advantages of practicing in a large firm.  I can today call on resources from across the country today that dwarf those available to many in "larger" firms. And I mentioned above about your credibility vs. the firm’s. The fact is that most clients of any financial professional tend to see themselves not as being served by KPMG Peat Marwick, Merrill Lynch, American Express, Bank of America, etc., but rather being served by John and trusting his judgement.  When John goes from large entity A to large entity B, a good portion of the clients move with him (thus the need for noncompete agreements and clauses <grin). If you serve small clients, I happen to believe your credibility is enhanced by actually being an owner of a small business or working inside one rather than simply having "studied" them.  I can talk with a client about other, nonaccounting issues we both face running a business, while those in larger entities just turn those problems over to the "proper department". Anyway, that’s my perspective of change in the accounting business….

You now have my take as well <grin.  I think we actually agree that CPAs that try and dig in their heels and want to practice in exactly the same manner for many years are going to be in trouble.  But there is a real opportunity for those that see it. Ed Zollars, CPA (AZ) http://www.getnet.com/~hmtzcpas

Response:

I agree with the other post to this subject that technology is dramatically changing the way accountant deliver their services. But I view this change as an opportunity, not as a threat. From what I have seen it looks to me like a large percent of accountants are spending most of their time worrying about the negative effects of technology and little of no time working on taking advantage of the opportunity that it offers. As an example QuickBooks users are a major source of revenue for our firm. We provide setup, fixup, telephone support, and completion of the functions that the client is not interested in doing. We have lost the clerical data import activity, but the additional revenue from the computer consulting is significally  more and our billing realization rates are much higher. A significant portion of our new business is coming from clients whose current accountant will not provide this type of support. As I write this I am asking myself, why am I encouraging accountants of wake up to the opportunity technology offers. I am better off if we are the only firm who is trying to take advantage of this opportunity. Myron Joy CPA       Joy & Associates P.C.       Phoenix Az Accountants and Information Technology Consultants Developers of ClientLink E-WriteUp Software

Response:

DSL impact on accounting practices ADSL connections are becoming available in wide areas around Seattle now, both from US West and GTE. It is apparent that this is happening in wide areas of the US, and Canada and Europe as well. In Seattle, I now pay $20 to my ISP plus $85 to GTE for a 64K ISDN connection to the internet. Total $105/month. The price for DSL, including a permanent connection to the internet (and permanent IP Address!)  will be $40/month + $12 monthly rent for the terminal adapter, plus $25 from my ISP, total $77 per month for a 256K connection. Obviously many small businesses will install DSL and will be immediately possible for them to log into a powerful featured accounting system like Great Plains, just with off-the-shelf networking.  Astonishing. Does Great Plains or other high-end software allow you to establish departments or subsidiary companies for your clients? This is too big to ignore, this kind of development is going to rip the hell out of our long-established paradigms.   CPAs need to re-examine the facts of life and reorient the way we do business.   Software vendors need to realize that the old licensing deals are leaving them TOO EXPENSIVE.   The existing client-server vendors are vulnerable to newer, smaller vendors based on MS Small Business Server, for example.   Solomon, Great Plains, SOTA, etc are all going to be very quickly left behind just as IBM was left behind for their pricing errors, as soon as a reasonably functional competitor emerges with lower pricing. DSL will be used for long distance.  When you have a permanent IP address you can be reached instantly by MS Net Meeting from anyplace in the world, for free. Including video, remote control, whiteboard or any other shared applications.   Wake up and smmellll the coffee, boys.  DSL has arrived. * Todd F. Boyle CPA              www.isomedia.com/homes/tboyle * 9745-128th Av NE, Kirkland WA 98033       (425) 827-3107 * Fax (425) 576-0616

Response:

This is too big to ignore, this kind of development is going to rip the hell out of our long-established paradigms.   CPAs need to re-examine the facts of life and reorient the way we do business. Wake up and smmellll the coffee, boys.  DSL has arrived.

Todd, The change in the accounting business over the next few years will be radical. Accountants graduating without some real computer skills may begin to find themselves unemployable. 1) As an accountant, there is little work to do that can’t be done better, faster, more accurately, and for less money by a computer.  This includes almost everything the CPA does.  The biggest problem I have in my office is convincing other CPAs of this fact.  Their involvement in their work is nearly superflous. 2) Intuit’s obvious problems aside, they are quickly becoming to the software industry what Microsoft has become to the OS & Office Suite business.  And they have a lot of cash to buy up the competition with.  In addition, you’ll see QB move toward replacing some of the high end products, IF Intuit gets is support act together.  A couple of months ago I had a client ridicule me about my work with QB — (they felt they needed a high end system, I had told them they were much too small for it; they referred to QB as a "toy" system).  Last week they called back, amazed at some of the stuff they could do with it.  QB is not perfect for a lot of reasons, but Intuit has the ability to fix it. 3) After end users can do their own bookkeeping and transfer their data automatically to their entity returns, 90% of what they use accountants for is gone.  The rest is computer work.  While audits will continue, mostly larger firms will be doing them I’d think (audit work comprises only about 50K of our annual fees, and I’m not so sure it is even worth it given the peer review and all that crap we have to go through). In short, I think the traditional role of the CPA is near death.  All we need is some really good tax reform giving us a NST in lieu of an income tax, and the CPA business is gone. Anyway, that’s my perspective of change in the accounting business…. David

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I recently purchased Quickbooks 5 to use in my practice of public accounting. So many of my clients seem to be making this choice. However, in trying to load my clients data from Quickbooks DOS version 1 and 2 Intuit seems to be unwilling to help in the conversion. I think it’s  a lot to ask that data can be converted automatically and/or free through 4 version upgrades, particularly when it costs as little as QB  **AND**  you’re using it professionally.  However ….. QB3 (Windows) can convert data from versions 1 and 2, DOS or Windows. QB4 (Windows) can convert data from versions 2 and 3, DOS or Windows.   QB5 I don’t know, not using it, but I presume that the manual tell you what data it can convert.  I’ll guess that it can convert data from at least version 3, 4 – and maybe also version 2.   I’ve converted about 30 files through various versions up to 4.5C (the latest Canadian version) without a single error or problem. I’d recommend that you buy a copy of version 3, use it to convert data from all previous versions, then convert the new files to version 5.  I also suggest you encourage your versions 1-2 clients to upgrade to at least version 3. If you can’t or don’t want to buy version 3, put all the older data on diskette and mail to me with a cheque or money order for $25 per file; I’ll convert them all to version 3 and return them asap.   E-mail one file to me first for a free trial.

QB 2 or 2.1 DOS can read & automatically convert QB 1 files. QB 5 Win or Pro automatically reads & converts from these. There is no going back, but QB 5 is much better. Mike Block, CPA, 275 E Oakland Pk Blvd, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33334 Taxation is legalized theft!  Please help us stop this organized crime!

Response:

I recently purchased Quickbooks 5 to use in my practice of public accounting. So many of my clients seem to be making this choice. However, in trying to load my clients data from Quickbooks DOS version 1 and 2 Intuit seems to be unwilling to help in the conversion.

I think it’s  a lot to ask that data can be converted automatically and/or free through 4 version upgrades, particularly when it costs as little as QB  **AND**  you’re using it professionally.  However ….. QB3 (Windows) can convert data from versions 1 and 2, DOS or Windows. QB4 (Windows) can convert data from versions 2 and 3, DOS or Windows.   QB5 I don’t know, not using it, but I presume that the manual tell you what data it can convert.  I’ll guess that it can convert data from at least version 3, 4 – and maybe also version 2.   I’ve converted about 30 files through various versions up to 4.5C (the latest Canadian version) without a single error or problem. I’d recommend that you buy a copy of version 3, use it to convert data from all previous versions, then convert the new files to version 5.  I also suggest you encourage your versions 1-2 clients to upgrade to at least version 3. If you can’t or don’t want to buy version 3, put all the older data on diskette and mail to me with a cheque or money order for $25 per file; I’ll convert them all to version 3 and return them asap.   E-mail one file to me first for a free trial. — Vernon (Vern) Paige

Response:

I recently purchased Quickbooks 5 to use in my practice of public accounting. So many of my clients seem to be making this choice. However, in trying to load my clients data from Quickbooks DOS version 1 and 2 Intuit seems to be unwilling to help in the conversion. I have called their customer support only to be told that the "free" software mentioned in the manual costs $149 or the cost of a new upgrade for my clients. Once they directed me to their web page, but still I receive the same error message. Has anyone had experience with this? Thanks.

Response:

Question:

Internet Proficient, Windows 95, MS Office 97, Lotus, Accounting Software

What has this to do with ADA.  So much for internet proficiency. — Mark Turnbull

Response:

: : Internet Proficient, Windows 95, MS Office 97, Lotus, Accounting Software : : : What has this to do with ADA.  So much for internet proficiency. : : — : Mark Turnbull I can’t help meself.  I think he left out wanker. — Cheers, Herdy  | University of Newcastle       |                 ~~~| /~~  |

Response:

JOHN V. AGUILERA [snip] Computer Skills Internet Proficient, Windows 95, MS Office 97, Lotus, Accounting Software

forgot to add Spamming sp –==" Believe me Jerry, somewhere in this hospital the anguished voice of       pig-man cries out for help "  Kramer.. ==–

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : Internet Proficient, Windows 95, MS Office 97, Lotus, Accounting Software : : : What has this to do with ADA.  So much for internet proficiency. : : — : Mark Turnbull I can’t help meself.  I think he left out wanker. — Cheers, Herdy | University of Newcastle       |                 ~~~| /~~  |

Response:

JOHN V. AGUILERA 3562 Pine Street Jacksonville, Florida  32205 (904)   388-5510 PROFILE Results oriented manager with strong leadership capabilities and proven decision making skills.  Flexible and adaptable in dynamic, high pressure situations.  Articulate and assertive individual with excellent written, verbal, presentation, and networking skills.  Works well within a team or independently.  Successful and diverse experience in sales, marketing, operational management, fixed time projects, recruiting and human resources. EXPERIENCE 1996 to Present, Avondale Search International, Inc. Director of Operations Implemented successful strategies in sales presentations, contract negotiation and as acting CFO implementing all financial planning which guided the growth of this international recruitment firm from its inception to immediate profitability. Prospected and signed three contracts with multinational corporations and have successfully placed over  60 qualified candidates. MILITARY EXPERIENCE 1989 to Present: Lieutenant, Naval Aviator, United States Navy Training Officer Developed and executed a detailed program for 63 naval helicopter pilots which has now become the standard for the training department. Solely responsible for reducing the time students took to go through syllabus from nine months to under six months. Specifically recognized by commanding officer and among peers as one of the top instructor pilots in the squadron. Operations Officer Chosen to represent and coordinate U. S. Navy operations at UN Embassy in Mogadishu, Somalia during Operation Restore Hope. Designed  the primary air route used to train NATO and American Combat Search and Rescue crews for night vision goggle flight in the Adriatic/Bosnian theater of operations. Smoothly executed daily flight schedule of over 40 instructors and 63 students. Quality Assurance Officer Responsible for ensuring quality maintenance practices on six SH-60 helicopters valued at over nineteen million dollars each. Directly managed forty maintenance technicians. Responsible for personnel administration, human resource programs and preparation of performance evaluations. AWARDS AND COMMENDATIONS Awarded Naval Commendation Medal by the Secretary of the Navy for heroic lifesaving efforts involving a burning Turkish ship in the Aegean Sea (1992). Awarded Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal for leadership excellence. Pilot of the Year 1995 – Association of Naval Aviators (ANA). CIVIC INVOLVEMENT United Way Community Solutions Volunteer. Raised $1,700 and over 50 sponsors in one week for the 1997 American Diabetes Golf Marathon. Hand picked to speak at local area schools regarding the importance of education, motivation, and success. Education BS/BA Business Administration (Finance) 1989, Boston University Languages       English, French Computer Skills Internet Proficient, Windows 95, MS Office 97, Lotus, Accounting Software

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –                    THE STORY OF THE BUCK ACT                               by                        Richard McDonald                            edited by                         Mitch Modeleski     In order  for you  to understand  the full import of what is happening, I must explain certain laws to you.     When passing  new statutes,  the Federal  government  always does everything according to the principles of law.  In order for the Federal  Government to  tax a  Citizen of  one of the several states, they  had to create some sort of contractual nexus.  This contractual nexus is the "Social Security Number".     In 1935,  the federal government instituted Social Security. The  Social  Security  Board  then  created  10  Social  Security "Districts".   The combination of these "Districts" resulted in a "Federal area"  which covered all the several states like a clear plastic overlay.     In 1939,  the  federal  government  instituted  the  "Public Salary Tax  Act of  1939".   This Act  is a  municipal law of the District of  Columbia for taxing all federal and state government employees and those who live and work in any "Federal area".

It is a law for the United States of America.  It is not a municipal law.     Now, the government knows it cannot tax those state Citizens who live and work outside the territorial jurisdiction of Article 1, Section  8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) or Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the U.S. Constitution.  

The 16th Amendment changed this.  That is why it is called an "Amendment".  Note that "state Citizens" are also "US citizens" according to the 14th Amendment. So, in 1940, Congress passed the "Buck  Act", 4 U.S.C.S. Sections 105-113.  In Section 110(e), this Act  authorized any  department of the federal government to create a  "Federal area" for imposition of the "Public Salary Tax Act of  1939".   This tax is imposed at 4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 111.  The rest of  the taxing  law is  found in  the Internal Revenue Code. The Social  Security Board  had already  created a "Federal area" overlay.     4 U.S.C.S.  Sec. 110(d).   The  term  "State"  includes  any     Territory or possession of the United States.

Evidently for the purposes of this law.  It would be far better for them to have defined another term to include states, territories, and possessions for the purposes of the law.  Note that this definition of "State" still includes the constituent states of the USA.     4 U.S.C.S.  Sec. 110(e).   The term "Federal area" means any     lands or  premises held or acquired by or for the use of the     United States or any department, establishment, or agency of     the United  States;  

Note the semicolon ends the first definition.  A second definition of another term follows.     and any  Federal  area,  or  any  part     thereof, which  is located within the exterior boundaries of     any State,  shall be  deemed to  be a  Federal area  located     within such State.

So Fort Meade, in addtion to being a Federal area, is also a Federal area located within Maryland.     There is  no reasonable  doubt that  the federal  "State" is imposing an excise tax under the provisions of 4 U.S.C.S. Section 105, which states in pertinent part:

The following Sec. 105 grants no taxation authority.  It states that the labeling of an area as a Federal area does not exempt that area from existing local and state taxes.  This quoted section in no way imposes any tax, excise or otherwise.     Sec. 105.  State, and  so forth,  taxation affecting Federal     areas;  sales or use tax     (a) No  person shall  be relieved from liability for payment     of, collection  of, or  accounting for  any sales or use tax     levied by  any State,  or by  any  duly  constituted  taxing     authority therein,  having jurisdiction to levy such tax, on     the ground  that the sale or use, with respect to which such     tax is levied, occurred in whole or in part within a Federal     area;   and such  State or  taxing authority shall have full     jurisdiction and  power to  levy and collect any such tax in     any Federal  area within  such State  to the same extent and     with the  same effect  as though such area was not a Federal     area.

I.e. state and local authorities have their collection of tax unaffected by whether a location is labelled a Federal area.  E.g. at NIH, you have to pay MD state sales tax at the gift shop.  This seems like it should mean that PX’s should also charge the local and state sales taxes.  My understanding was that they didn’t.  Could someone explain this dichotomy?     Irrespective of what the tax is called, if its purpose is to     produce revenue, it is an income tax or a receipts tax under     the Buck Act [4 U.S.C.A. Secs. 105-110].     Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Calvert, 464 SW 2d. 170 (1971),     affd (Tex) 478 SW 2d. 926, cert. den. 409 U.S. 967, 34 L.Ed.     2d. 234, 93 S.Ct. 293.

I.e. the Buck act labels taxes whose purpose is to produce revenue as either income or receipts taxes.  Fine definition.  What point is being raised?     Thus, the obvious question arises: What is a "Federal area"?

Why does this become an "obvious question"?  It was defined above, and then a passage was quoted which stated the irrelevance of such designation for one purpose.  Nothing so far posted indicates any reason why we should be concerned with such a designation. A  "Federal   area"  is   any  area  designated  by  any  agency, department, or  establishment of  the  federal  government.  

This is contrary to the defintion posted above:     4 U.S.C.S.  Sec. 110(e).   The term "Federal area" means any     lands or  premises held or acquired by or for the use of the     United States or any department, establishment, or agency of     the United  States;  

It has nothing to do with "designation";  it means areas "acquired" or "held", i.e. land occupied by the federal governement. This includes the  Social Security  areas  designated  by  the  Social Security Administration, any public housing area that has federal funding, a  home that  has a  federal bank  loan, a road that has federal  funding,   and  almost   everything  that   the  federal government touches  through any  type of  aid.    Springfield  v. Kenny, 104  N.E. 2d 65 (1951 App.).  

This would be a very strange conclusion given the text above.  Could you quote from the above citation to support this claim?  Other con- clusions in this piece are poorly supported.  I see no reason to track down a case only to see that it does not support a wild claim based upon it. This "Federal area" attaches to anyone  who has  a Social  Security  Number  or  any  personal contact with  the federal  or state  governments.   Through  this mechanism, the  federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as  well as  the Sovereignty  of the  several states,  by creating "Federal  areas" within  the boundaries  of  the  states under the  authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the federal Constitution, which states:

Labelling something a "Federal area" does not make it the property of the USA.  The US does not own the contents of each zip code, or each Federal Reserve District, or the holder of each Social Security number.     2.   The Congress  shall have  Power to  dispose of and make     all needful  Rules and  Regulations respecting the Territory     or other  Property  belonging  to  the  United  States,  and     nothing in  this Constitution  shall be  so construed  as to     prejudice any  claims  of  the  United  States,  or  of  any     particular State.

Certainly if a property were owned by the US, the US could make rules respecting it.       Therefore, all  U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of Columbia]  residing in  one of  the states  of the  Union, are

Citizens of each state are US citizens, as are DC citizens.  Anyone born in any state is a US citizen, as are those whose parents are US citizens. classified as property, as franchisees of the federal government, and as  an "individual entity".  See Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.   Under the "Buck Act", 4 U.S.C.S.  Secs. 105-113,  the federal  government has created a "Federal area"  within the  boundaries of all the several states.

Nothing has been quoted from the Buck act to support this conclusion.  Nothing quoted from the Buck act has given the Federal government any powers over what is designated, solely for the purposes of that act, "Federal areas".  Any taking of property by the government is restricted in the Bill of Rights.  Such a wholesale taking as claimed herein would be unconstitutional on its face. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through  purchase, conquest  or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial  law upon  all people in this "Federal area". Federal territorial  law is  evidenced by  the Executive Branch’s yellow-fringed U.S.  flag flying  in  schools,  offices  and  all courtrooms.

I have heard this claim disputed.  Could someone provide a basis for this claim–why we should believe it to be true? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     You must  live on  land in one of the states in the Union of several states, not in any "Federal State" or "Federal area", nor can you  be involved  in any activity that would make you subject to "federal  laws". You  cannot  have  a  valid  Social  Security Number, a "resident" driver’s license, a motor vehicle registered in your  name, a  "federal"  bank  account,  a  Federal  Register Account  Number   relating  to  Individual  persons  [SSN],  (see Executive Order  Number 9397,  November 1943), or any other known "contract implied  in fact"

… read more »

Response:

                    THE STORY OF THE BUCK ACT                                by                         Richard McDonald                             edited by                          Mitch Modeleski      In order  for you  to understand  the full import of what is happening, I must explain certain laws to you.      When passing  new statutes,  the Federal  government  always does everything according to the principles of law.  In order for the Federal  Government to  tax a  Citizen of  one of the several states, they  had to create some sort of contractual nexus.  This contractual nexus is the "Social Security Number".      In 1935,  the federal government instituted Social Security. The  Social  Security  Board  then  created  10  Social  Security "Districts".   The combination of these "Districts" resulted in a "Federal area"  which covered all the several states like a clear plastic overlay.      In 1939,  the  federal  government  instituted  the  "Public Salary Tax  Act of  1939".   This Act  is a  municipal law of the District of  Columbia for taxing all federal and state government employees and those who live and work in any "Federal area".      Now, the government knows it cannot tax those state Citizens who live and work outside the territorial jurisdiction of Article 1, Section  8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) or Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the U.S. Constitution.  So, in 1940, Congress passed the "Buck  Act", 4 U.S.C.S. Sections 105-113.  In Section 110(e), this Act  authorized any  department of the federal government to create a  "Federal area" for imposition of the "Public Salary Tax Act of  1939".   This tax is imposed at 4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 111.  The rest of  the taxing  law is  found in  the Internal Revenue Code. The Social  Security Board  had already  created a "Federal area" overlay.      4 U.S.C.S.  Sec. 110(d).   The  term  "State"  includes  any      Territory or possession of the United States.      4 U.S.C.S.  Sec. 110(e).   The term "Federal area" means any      lands or  premises held or acquired by or for the use of the      United States or any department, establishment, or agency of      the United  States;   and any  Federal  area,  or  any  part      thereof, which  is located within the exterior boundaries of      any State,  shall be  deemed to  be a  Federal area  located      within such State.      There is  no reasonable  doubt that  the federal  "State" is imposing an excise tax under the provisions of 4 U.S.C.S. Section 105, which states in pertinent part:      Sec. 105.  State, and  so forth,  taxation affecting Federal      areas;  sales or use tax      (a) No  person shall  be relieved from liability for payment      of, collection  of, or  accounting for  any sales or use tax      levied by  any State,  or by  any  duly  constituted  taxing      authority therein,  having jurisdiction to levy such tax, on      the ground  that the sale or use, with respect to which such      tax is levied, occurred in whole or in part within a Federal      area;   and such  State or  taxing authority shall have full      jurisdiction and  power to  levy and collect any such tax in      any Federal  area within  such State  to the same extent and      with the  same effect  as though such area was not a Federal      area.      Irrespective of what the tax is called, if its purpose is to      produce revenue, it is an income tax or a receipts tax under      the Buck Act [4 U.S.C.A. Secs. 105-110].      Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Calvert, 464 SW 2d. 170 (1971),      affd (Tex) 478 SW 2d. 926, cert. den. 409 U.S. 967, 34 L.Ed.      2d. 234, 93 S.Ct. 293.      Thus, the obvious question arises: What is a "Federal area"? A  "Federal   area"  is   any  area  designated  by  any  agency, department, or  establishment of  the  federal  government.  This includes the  Social Security  areas  designated  by  the  Social Security Administration, any public housing area that has federal funding, a  home that  has a  federal bank  loan, a road that has federal  funding,   and  almost   everything  that   the  federal government touches  through any  type of  aid.    Springfield  v. Kenny, 104  N.E. 2d 65 (1951 App.).  This "Federal area" attaches to anyone  who has  a Social  Security  Number  or  any  personal contact with  the federal  or state  governments.   Through  this mechanism, the  federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as  well as  the Sovereignty  of the  several states,  by creating "Federal  areas" within  the boundaries  of  the  states under the  authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the federal Constitution, which states:      2.   The Congress  shall have  Power to  dispose of and make      all needful  Rules and  Regulations respecting the Territory      or other  Property  belonging  to  the  United  States,  and      nothing in  this Constitution  shall be  so construed  as to      prejudice any  claims  of  the  United  States,  or  of  any      particular State.      Therefore, all  U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of Columbia]  residing in  one of  the states  of the  Union, are classified as property, as franchisees of the federal government, and as  an "individual entity".  See Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.  Under the "Buck Act", 4 U.S.C.S.  Secs. 105-113,  the federal  government has created a "Federal area"  within the  boundaries of all the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through  purchase, conquest  or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial  law upon  all people in this "Federal area". Federal territorial  law is  evidenced by  the Executive Branch’s yellow-fringed U.S.  flag flying  in  schools,  offices  and  all courtrooms.      You must  live on  land in one of the states in the Union of several states, not in any "Federal State" or "Federal area", nor can you  be involved  in any activity that would make you subject to "federal  laws". You  cannot  have  a  valid  Social  Security Number, a "resident" driver’s license, a motor vehicle registered in your  name, a  "federal"  bank  account,  a  Federal  Register Account  Number   relating  to  Individual  persons  [SSN],  (see Executive Order  Number 9397,  November 1943), or any other known "contract implied  in fact"  that  would  place  you  within  any "Federal area"  and thus  within the  territorial jurisdiction of the municipal  laws of  Congress.  Remember, all acts of Congress are territorial  in nature  and only apply within the territorial jurisdiction of  Congress.   (See American  Banana Co.  v. United Fruit Co.,  213 U.S.  347, 356-357  (1909);   U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217,  222, 94 L.Ed. 3, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949);  New York Central R.R. Co.  v. Chisholm, 268 U.S. 29, 31-32, 69 L.Ed. 828, 45 S.Ct. 402 (1925).)      There has  been created  a fictional Federal "State within a state".   See Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct.  465, 476,  97 L.Ed. 617 (1953);  Schwartz v. O’Hara TP. School Dist., 100 A. 2d. 621, 625, 375 Pa. 440.  (Compare also 31 C.F.R. Parts 51.2 and 52.2, which also identify a fictional State within a state.)  This fictional "State" is identified by the use of  two-letter   abbreviations  like  "CA",  "AZ"  and  "TX",  as distinguished from  the authorized  abbreviations like  "Calif.", "Ariz." and  "Tex.", etc.   This  fictional State  also uses  ZIP codes which  are  within  the  municipal,  exclusive  legislative jurisdiction of Congress.      This entire  scheme was accomplished by passage of the "Buck Act", 4  U.S.C.S. Secs.  105-113, to implement the application of the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939" to workers within the private sector.   This subjects  all private  sector workers  who have  a Social Security number to all state and federal laws "within this State",  a  "fictional  Federal  area"  overlaying  the  land  in California and  in all other states in the Union.  In California, this is established by California Form 590, Revenue and Taxation. All you have to do is to state that you live in California.  This establishes that you do not live in a "Federal area" and that you are exempt  from the  Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 and also from the California Income Tax for residents who live "in this State".      The following  definition is  used  throughout  the  several states in  the application  of their municipal laws which require some sort of contract for proper application.  This definition is also included  in all  the codes  of California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah and New York:      "In this  State" or "in the State" means within the exterior      limits of  the State … and includes all territories within      such limits owned or ceded to the United States of America. This definition concurs with the "Buck Act" supra which states:      110(d) The term "State" includes any Territory or possession      of the United States.      110(e) The  term "Federal  area" means any lands or premises      held or  acquired by  or for the use of the United States or      any department,  establishment,  or  agency  of  the  United      States;  and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is      located within  the exterior  boundaries of any State, shall      be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.      So, do  some research.   I  have given  you all  the  proper directions in  which to  look for  the jurisdictional  nexus that places you within the purview of the federal government.

Response: