Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old July 20th 08, 07:23 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.accounting,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Grant Perks is bringing back the full $100,000 in "imaginary money"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant Perks
The first issue is how to treat the excess income
over the $50,000 cap. To avoid never being able to report on a GAAP
basis, it appears to me that the excess income must go straight to the
fund balance. While posting directly to the fund balance the income
isn't being shown on the P&L it is still being recognized. If it isn't
handled this way then the only way to get back to GAAP would be to
post a prior period adjustment in 2010. A prior period adjustment
appears contrary to the spirit of the mandate.

My personal read of the bylaws indicates that the financials are to be
presented on a GAAP basis. This delegate mandate was not an amendment
to the bylaws. In my opinion, the bylaws should take priority over a
delegate motion in the case of a conflict.

Grant Perks
The $50,000 cap is a cap on the so-called "imaginary" money that the
USCF is supposed to receive but does not actually get. Back when the
LMA or "Life Management Assets" had two million dollars in it, every
year the LMA would transfer about $100,000 to operations to service
the Life Members by sending them Chess Life magazine.

However, during the period 1999-2003, the entire $2 million was
"borrowed" and spent. Thus, that LMA does not exist any more.

Nevertheless, ever since, operations has made a bookkeeping entry
showing the receipt of the $100,000 which is offset by a reduction of
the "debt" owed by Operations to the LMA.

Thus, last year, when the office reported a $3,000 surplus, in real
money there was a loss of $97,000, because the revenues included this
$100,000 that was not actually received.

At the 2007 delegates meeting in Cherry Hill, the delegates voted to
place a $50,000 cap on the imaginary money. I vote against this
because I believe that the imaginary money should be deleted entirely.

What Grant Perks is saying above is that GAAP requires that the full
$100,000 in "imaginary money" be included, so that in this year's
financial statements we will once again reporting $100,000 more money
as revenues than we have actually received.

Sam Sloan
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Decision of Ethics Committee on Complaint by Grant Perks samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 January 27th 07 03:00 PM
Answer by Sam Sloan to Ethics Complaint by Grant Perks samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 January 27th 07 02:54 PM
Petition for Rehearing of Decision on Ethics Complaint by Grant Perks against Sam Sloan samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 4 January 26th 07 05:40 PM
Petition for Rehearing of Decision on Ethics Complaint by Grant Perks against Sam Sloan samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 1 January 26th 07 02:06 PM
Grant Perks is only a "Paid Consultant" according to Mike Nolan Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 June 24th 06 10:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017